MINUTES OF COUNCIL/COMMITTEES INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL MINUTE BOOK (INCORPORATING CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES)
Contents Page No Minutes of meetings
Minutes of meeting Monday, 20th September, 2010 of Local (Pages 359 - 364) Development Framework Panel
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 21st September, 2010 of Staffing (Pages 365 - 368) Committee
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 23rd September, 2010 of Overview and (Pages 369 - 376) Scrutiny Committee
Minutes of meeting Monday, 27th September, 2010 of Community (Pages 377 - 380) Select Panel
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 28th September, 2010 of Licensing (Pages 381 - 384) Committee
Minutes of meeting Monday, 4th October, 2010 of Corporate Select (Pages 385 - 390) Panel
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 12th October, 2010 of Planning Board A (Pages 391 - 396)
Minutes of meeting Wednesday, 13th October, 2010 of Overview and (Pages 397 - 402) Scrutiny Committee
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 14th October, 2010 of Council (Pages 403 - 438)
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 14th October, 2010 of Standards (Pages 439 - 446) Committee
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 21st October, 2010 of Strategic (Pages 447 - 450) Planning Committee
Minutes of meeting Monday, 25th October, 2010 of Every Child (Pages 451 - 456) Matters Select Panel
Minutes of meeting Friday, 29th October, 2010 of Appeals Committee (Pages 457 - 458)
Minutes of meeting Monday, 1st November, 2010 of Health and (Pages 459 - 464) Wellbeing Select Panel
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 2nd November, 2010 of Audit and (Pages 465 - 470) Governance Committee
Minutes of meeting Wednesday, 3rd November, 2010 of Executive (Pages 471 - 480)
1
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 9th November, 2010 of Planning Board A (Pages 481 - 486)
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 11th November, 2010 of Overview and (Pages 487 - 492) Scrutiny Committee
Minutes of meeting Thursday, 18th November, 2010 of Strategic (Pages 493 - 502) Planning Committee
Minutes of meeting Monday, 22nd November, 2010 of Community (Pages 503 - 506) Select Panel
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 23rd November, 2010 of Planning Board (Pages 507 - 510) B
CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 30 September, 2009 of Castle Park Trust (Pages 511 - 514) Executive Committee
Minutes of meeting Tuesday, 15th December, 2009 of Castle Park (Pages 515 - 518) Trust Executive Committee
Minutes of meeting Wednesday, 17th March, 2010 of Castle Park (Pages 519 - 522) Trust Executive Committee
Minutes of meeting Wednesday, 16th June, 2010 of Castle Park Trust (Pages 523 - 526) Executive Committee
Minutes of meeting Wednesday, 22nd September, 2010 of Castle Park (Pages 527 - 532) Trust Executive Committee
2 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 20 SEPTEMBER 2010 PANEL (6.30 pm - 8.15 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Mark Stocks (Chairman)
Councillors Brian Clarke, Bob Crompton, Reggie Jones, Andrew Needham (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Keith Board), Andrew Storrar and Norman Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith Board, Herbert Manley and Bob Thompson
Reserve Member: Councillor Andrew Needham (in place of Councillor Keith Board)
Officers in Alan Slater − Head of Strategic Housing & Spatial attendance: Planning Jeremy Owens − Strategic Manager - Spatial Planning Phill Bamford − LDF Programme Manager Anthony Hodge − Growth Point Manager Charlotte Aspinall − Senior Planner Mark Allen − Senior Planning Officer Sue Wakeford − Democratic Services Officer
25 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS There were no Declarations of Interests.
26 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Panel held on 26 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Updates
The Chairman asked for an update on the Gypsy and Traveller Site situation. It was reported that there were many policy changes in this area, including the withdrawal of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), the halting of the North-West Partial Review and the promise of fundamental reforms to the planning system, which made the current planning situation uncertain. Furthermore, the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was becoming outdated and needed refreshing. The effect of these changes needed to be understood before specific sites were examined.
Members were concerned about the current uncertainty and asked what information Planning Inspectors were using in order to make appeal decisions. It was reported that the current Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment was being used but the more outdated that became, the less weight it held at appeal.
The Chairman understood that the Council still had some funding available for gypsy and traveller sites and site identification was still necessary but the new
Page 359 parameters needed to be known beforehand. The government was also likely to take a tougher stance regarding the way land was taken over by gypsies and travellers in the future.
The Head of Strategic Housing & Spatial Planning confirmed that the provision, selection and standard of sites would vary throughout the country following changes in policy and the withdrawal of national funding. Provisions of future sites would rely on local priorities and resources. Members recognised that the Council was in an unsatisfactory position awaiting information and noted that rural councils were under pressure to provide sites, and the absence of dedicated national funding in the future made provision much more difficult.
27 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION There was one member of the public present, but he did not have any questions and no questions had been submitted beforehand.
28 GROWTH POINT/LDF EVIDENCE BASE - WATER CYCLE STRATEGY A presentation was given by Chris Tattersall of Entec on the Water Cycle Strategy which had been commissioned to ascertain whether environmental resources could cope with further development including with regard to the growth point areas. The aim was to:
• identify where the existing infrastructure would become overloaded. • identify where new infrastructure or management interventions were needed to allow further development. • have effective liaison with adjoining Growth Point areas. • identify where any development impacted on sites of significant nature conservation. • form part of the evidence for the Core Strategy, the Infrastructure Plan and the Habitats Regulations Assessment.
The main findings were that:
• growth was not constrained by water resource availability or supply. • water quality was assessed as ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’ throughout much of the area. • most development sites identified were located outside groundwater source protection zones. • designated sites were identified as being at risk from wastewater discharges and abstraction.
As significant work had already been carried out on flood risk in the Strategic and Area Flood Risk Assessments, previously commissioned, it was not taken any further in the Water Cycle study.
The study was overseen by a steering group which included officers and representatives from the Environment Agency and the three water companies serving the area, United Utilities, Dee Valley Water and Welsh Water. The report highlighted the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the water companies and adjoining authorities to ensure that any requirements for additional capacity were identified as early as possible.
Page 360
The recommendations were:
• to continue collaborative working with water companies and other stakeholders. • to commission a Flood Risk Assessment for Ellesmere Port docks. • a requirement for Sustainable Urban Drainage systems in new developments. • to undertake Surface Water Management Plans, focusing on Chester, Neston and five other locations. • to include water efficiency in local development areas. • to contribute to environmental enhancements. • that there was no immediate need for a Detailed Water Cycle study.
Following a Member’s question it was clarified that in Wincham there was a potential capacity problem with the waste water treatment and no undersupply of water.
Regarding the drought during the summer, only part of CW&C was in the hosepipe ban area but it was not clear who was in the area and who was not. It was clarified that the water companies were responsible for informing customers. Officers agreed to feed this back to United Utilities.
One Member noted that the flood risk areas had been assessed but asked about the storage of water and suggested that the Victorian reservoirs were still the bulk of our storage capacity. The Growth Point Manager confirmed that they were working with the water companies so that they would know where the growth areas were.
Members asked whether United Utilities worked on a five year capital programme and was this in line with the developments that were coming forward and what the funding programme was, whether there was an investment plan. Information was already being fed from councils regarding future developments to water companies and this was being used to inform investment plans. This was the case with CW&C and the utility companies that were all part of the Growth Point Implementation Group. Members were encouraged that the Council was working so closely with the utility companies.
DECIDED: That
(1) the information be noted.
(2) a summary note be circulated to Members of the Local Development Framework Panel regarding the current investment programmes of the utility companies in the CW&C area.
29 GROWTH POINT UPDATE The Growth Point Manager introduced the report on the Growth Point update.
The present difficult financial climate had reduced the delivery of housing and
Page 361 caused the following difficulties for developers and purchasers:
• over high land value aspirations. • funders looking for higher returns, reflecting current risk. • higher than usual deposits required by mortgage lenders.
However houses were still required and the Growth Point Team were looking at short and medium term ways of rebuilding capacity. Coherent growth rather than piecemeal was the aim.
Short Term
• Viability Assessments – to consider whether schemes were viable or not. • Private Sector Engagement – to consider other reasons for sites ‘stalling’. • Feasibility Studies – to help in the provision of, for example, infrastructure which in turn helped the feasibility of a scheme. • Intelligence – keeping up with the latest market news in talks with the private sector.
Medium term
• Growth Fund – the Council had secured the approval of the second instalment of capital Growth Funding from Communities and Local Government of £1,108,192. • Public Land Initiative – to make some disused CW&C sites ‘market ready’.
One Member suggested that areas of land owned by CW&C at Barons Quay, Northwich, should be sold off for housing. It was highlighted that there were already several large ‘pipeline’ residential schemes in the locality, for example Winnington Urban Village (1200 houses), Wincham Urban Village (1000 houses) and Rudheath (500 houses).
The amount of growth fund money available to potential sites was discussed. Members suggested that smaller builders could also be encouraged to start schemes. However there was still fear of a ‘double-dip’ recession.
DECIDED: That
(1) the information be noted.
(2) a report regarding the utilisation of the Council’s land assets to support housing development in the CW&C area to go back to a future meeting of the Local Development Framework Panel.
30 EMBRACING LOCALISM IN THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The proposed Localism Bill was due out in November 2010.
It was understood that the new Government was committed to reforming the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to shape the places in which they lived. The Government’s priorities were to advance the ‘Big Society’ and ‘localism’ - the withdrawal of the RSS being the most significant change so far (it was expected that it would be formally abolished in the proposed Localism Bill).
Page 362
One of the likely outcomes from the proposed Bill was that the Council would need to engage more effectively with people and communities at a local level.
Members believed in local engagement as often the public did not fully understand some of the policy documents, for example, the Core Strategy or the Local Transport Plan.
Members warned that the Council could not give the local community a blank piece of paper as that could raise unrealistic expectations. Parameters would always exist but local residents should have a far greater voice.
Members were also concerned about the potential for NIMBYism (not in my back yard) and recognised that key strategic issues still had to be addressed such as the shortage of homes, including affordable homes. Engagement via the Area Forums was suggested.
DECIDED: That
(1) the information be noted.
(2) that consideration be given as to how local engagement is going to take place and the role of the Community Forums in this process.
31 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 363 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 364 STAFFING COMMITTEE 21 SEPTEMBER 2010 (3.00 pm - 5.40 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Pamela Hall (Chairman)
Councillors Mike Jones (Deputy Chairman), Derek Bateman, Les Ford, Myles Hogg and Bob Thompson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alan McKie
Officers in attendance: Euan Murdoch-Hollies − Head of Human Resources Samantha Brousas − HR Strategy Manager Debbie Thompson − Reward Manager Kath Brodie − Legal Services Ray McHale − UNISON Shiela Little − Soulbury Representative Ian Williams − UNITE David Sandison − UCATT Theresa Connelly − Unison Observer Deborah Ridgeley − Democratic Services Officer
74 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members did not declare any personal or prejudicial interests.
75 MINUTES DECIDED: That
The minutes of the meeting of the Staffing Committee held on 20 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
76 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION There were no members of the public present and no questions had been submitted in advance.
77 STAFF SUGGESTION SCHEME UPDATE Members were provided with an update on ideas submitted to Inspirations, the new staff suggestion Scheme.
It was reported that ideas submitted in June when the Scheme first launched totalled 70, and they had been subject to the first round of judging. Nine out of the 70 submitted ideas were considered to be eligible for an award. In July, 63 ideas were submitted and in August there were only 15 but this was considered to be due to the school holidays with fewer staff at work.
Members welcomed the suggestions and were encouraged by the number of ideas submitted.
DECIDED : That the update be noted.
Page 365 78 PROFESSIONAL FEES POLICY UPDATE Members were advised of the wording of the Professional Fees Policy, which had been considered at the last meeting of the Committee. Clarity was provided as to the wording for reclaiming any Professional Fees paid for an employee who subsequently then leaves the authority. It would enable Managers to reserve the right to claim 1/12 th of fees paid.
DECIDED : That the update on the wording be noted.
79 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING. The Chairman agreed to consider one item of urgent business on the grounds the Absence Management Policy was not available at the time the agenda was published and was due to be discussed with the trade union representatives following this meeting.
Absence Management Policy
Members considered the draft Absence Management Policy and were informed that the draft procedure for this Policy had been discussed with the trade union representatives. Agreement could not be reached as to the adoption of the Policy and procedure and it had been suggested that the Policy be introduced on a trial basis for 18 months. The procedure removed the discretionary right of Managers to discuss absence from work with their staff and made it compulsory. The requirement to have an initial discussion with staff would be triggered by a pattern of absence, which had been set at 10 days absence or four periods of absence over any rolling 12 month period. A certain level of discretion would still remain with Managers, and this would be applied in individual circumstances.
DECIDED: That
The Absence Management Policy be approved and the draft procedure be trialled for an 18 month period and reported back to the Staffing Committee.
80 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That
The press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the Agenda, pursuant to Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
81 REVIEW OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS - PROGRESS REPORT Members considered the report of the Head of Human Resources setting out progress made to date of the review of employee terms and conditions currently being undertaken.
Members were informed that the review encompassed staff policies, basic pay and all allowances, benefits and premium payments. The review aimed to:-
Page 366
• Create one set of harmonised terms and conditions for Council employees; • Support cultural change; • Make savings by getting more for our spend on pay; and • Deliver equal pay for work of equal value.
As part of the review process, twenty two policies and procedures had been examined and implemented via collective agreement, six others were still in the consultation stage and two still required further negotiations.
Formal consultations began with the trade unions on 25 June 2010, with governance arrangements for the project put in place, with fortnightly consultation meetings. This Project Group comprised trade union representatives, Human Resources Lead Business Partners representing services and Human Resources Strategy Team representatives. The meetings were chaired by the Head of Human Resources, and between the meetings, the union representatives were briefed on the detail behind elements of the consultation.
Members were reminded of external factors facing all local authorities, which included the outcome of the Spending Review, which was expected in October.
Members discussed Appendix 1 of the report in detail, and received updates on each element.
DECIDED: That
(1) The progress made to date be noted;
(2) Officers note the comments expressed by Members and be guided by them in the discussions with the trade union representatives.
At the conclusion of the Staffing Committee representatives of the recognised trade unions joined the meeting and were invited to express their comments and views about recent consultations.
82 JOINT MEETING WITH TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES
The following points were raised by the trade union representatives as still requiring further debate:-
• 2 or 3 outstanding policies to be reviewed, Redundancy, Probation and Flexi-time. Prefer to have employees who move between local authorities to not have to start probationary period again, further discussions needed with other two policies • Trial of Absence Management Policy, only agreed reluctantly • Recent problems at Connexions and the drop in morale there • Rumours concerning loss of social workers to meet budget reductions • Need for things to “settle down” in Children’s Services, with uncertainty about staff roles and responsibilities
Page 367 • Increased travelling time for some employees, as general parking was no longer available on the Castle Square car park, also aware of changes to car parking at the Northgate Arena and possibly Little Roodee car parks • Difficult situation for the trade unions – appreciate that harmonisation is required but there is still the need to protect the interests of the union members when in negotiations with officers • Concerns that if there are large numbers of redundancies, front line staff will be affected and the job won’t get done. Sure that staff would support a drop in allowance payments rather than redundancies • The unknown outcome of the Spending Review • Current harmonisation affecting the lower paid more, and trade unions have a duty to protect their members • Union opinion that the front line services appeared to be targeted for cuts when other back office, support services seem to be overstaffed and not affected • Concerns about potential outsourcing of services, impact on service delivery and possible TUPE protection, and whether that would be at the existing terms and conditions or the re-negotiated terms • Understand the need to improve efficient ways of working, but not always possible to do things cheaper without impacting on the service to the public • Aware that the services required 24 hours, 7 days a week do attract premium payments but that is to attract and retain key staff, concerned that if that was removed, trained staff would leave • Grading scheme and differences across the four authorities required attention but there are concerns that some staff will lose out. Also aware of anomalies across the former four councils that required to be ironed out.
The Chairman thanked everyone for attending, and contributing to the meeting.
Chairman
Date
Page 368 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 8.35 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Dawson (Chairman)
Councillors John Ebo (Deputy Chairman), Brian Clarke, Pamela Hall, Myles Hogg, Eleanor Johnson, Pat Merrick, Tom Parry, Graham Smith, George Miller (Reserve) (in place of Councillor John Grimshaw) and Bob Barton (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Charlie Parkinson). Daniel Palmer (UK Youth Parliament) Rose Proudfoot (UK Youth Parliament)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Malcolm Byram, John Grimshaw and Charlie Parkinson
Reserve Members: Councillors George Miller (in place of Councillor John Grimshaw) and Bob Barton (in place of Councillor Charlie Parkinson)
Visiting Member: Councillor Derek Bateman
Officers in attendance: Penny Housley − Senior Manager-Overview and Scrutiny Jerry Faulkner − Senior Manager, Revenues and Benefits Phil Nadolski − Local Taxation Manager
32 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest.
33 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
34 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 29 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
35 PUBLIC QUESTIONS/ OPEN SESSION There were no questions from the members of the public present at the meeting.
36 BUSINESS RATE HARDSHIP GRANT GUIDANCE At its meeting held on 7 June 2010 the Committee asked Councillor Les Ford, Executive Member for Finance to revise the guidance document on business rate hardship grants. The revised document was presented to the Committee prior to Councillor Ford formally signing off the changed.
Page 369 RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE: That
the revised Business Rate Hardship Grant Guidance be approved.
37 UPDATE ON CURRENT REVIEWS The Committee received an update on the progress of each of the Task Groups it had established.
Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) – Lead Member, Councillor Graham Smith advised that the Task Group had held meetings with a number of people including former volunteers, the Chief Executive of the Cheshire West CAB and the Cheshire West and Chester Council officers responsible for the Service Level Agreement. The Task Group would be visiting Warrington to look at how other CAB services were delivered and meeting Cheshire West service users. The Task group expected to be in a position to report back on findings and recommendations at the next meeting of the Committee.
Engaging Young People - Penny Housley, Senior Manager Overview and Scrutiny, advised that as the former Task Group Lead Member, Councillor Gareth Anderson was no longer on the Committee, the Task Group had lost focus. The Committee felt this was an important issue and should be continued. Councillor John Ebo was appointed as Lead Member, supported by Councillor Brian Clarke, Daniel Palmer and Rose Proudfoot.
ICT – Lead Member Councillor Andrew Dawson advised that the Task group had looked at the strategy and training and was now focusing on value for money.
Town and Parish Councils – Three seminars had been held with town and parish councils to explore a number of issues. More were planned. It was anticipated that a report with recommendations would be submitted to the Committee at its November meeting.
Support to Sex Workers – Lead Member Councillor Pat Merrick advised that initial research had been undertaken. No evidence of street prostitution had been found but a number of issues that required further scrutiny had come to light. A report with recommendations would be submitted to the December meeting of the Committee.
AGREED: That
(1) The progress of each Task Group be noted.
(2) The Engaging Young People Task Group continue, led by Councillor John Ebo and supported by Councillor Brian Clarke, Daniel Palmer and Rose Proudfoot.
38 UPDATE FROM SELECT PANELS Each of the Chairmen of the Select Panels gave an overview of the work being undertaken.
Page 370 Councillor Pat Merrick – Chairman of Corporate Select Panel
Tackling Pockets of Deprivation - The Panel was continuing its review of how to tackle pockets of deprivation, concentrating on the introduction of the Our Place review in Ellesmere Port and how this could be applied elsewhere in the borough.
Budget and Performance - information monitored and challenged where appropriate.
Issues to be reviewed at future meetings included:
• Induction for New Members • Green Travel for Staff • Partnerships • Capital Vision
Councillor Pamela Hall – Deputy Chairman of Community Select Panel
Highway Maintenance - Good progress being made against the recommendations the Committee had made. The £700K extra allocation from Central Government had been spent. Funding from the Council for road repairs had not increased this financial year. Although a Capital Bid for £103M had been included in the bidding process over the next ten years.
Chester Renaissance - Presentation received from Rita Waters, Chief Executive, on the role of the organisation.
Safer Stronger Thematic Partnership - Innovative scrutiny exercise undertaken with partners. As a result of the exercise, a revised strategy was awaited.
Children Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) - Incidents increased from 12 in 2008 to 22 in 2009. No common cause identified. Issues to be investigated included why School Heads were using third party providers to give road safety instruction.
Supporting Businesses Through the Recession - It had been difficult to conclude how effective this initiative had been.
Area Partnership Boards – The Select Panel were pleased to note that all Boards now had firm action plans.
Councillor Eleanor Johnson – Chairman of Every Child Matters Select Panel
Education and Employability of Looked After Children – A two night residential with nine looked after children to explore issues had taken place. Further research was being undertaken before a report would be presented.
Residential Homes for Children - Looking at quality and quantity.
School Attainment Figures – Review in early stages.
Early Intervention and Family Support - Panel received briefing and will monitor.
Page 371
Councillor Graham Smith – Chairman of Health and Wellbeing Select Panel
A number of reviews had been completed and many issues discussed:
Recommendations from the scrutiny of access to health by adults with learning disabilities project to inform the implementation plan and health review of the Learning Disabilities Strategy 2010-13. On the advice of the NHS Western Cheshire, a report submitted to Care Quality Commission had been given as a good example of Member involvement in the scrutiny of health services.
Recommendations from the scrutiny of recreational, leisure and cultural facilities for older people accepted by the Executive and would form part of the Council’s plan to “age proof ‟ its services.
Commented on proposed changes to mental health services in Central and Eastern Cheshire and on the consultation to be undertaken.
Joint project with Cheshire East and Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) looking at ways of identifying pockets of health inequalities in rural areas to be completed end of November 2010. This was one of ten projects which would feed into a national toolkit designed to help local authorities scrutinise health inequalities.
Continue to receive regular reports from the Primary Care Trusts and Cheshire West and Chester Local Involvement Network (LINk). Building a formal relationship with LINk through co-opting its chairman on to the Panel should help with regard to any transitional arrangements once the Council took over the overseeing role of the new ‘Healthwatch’ body as proposed in the NHS White Paper.
Ongoing reviews
Personalisation - Task group had been set up to scrutinise the implementation of the Council’s Personalisation programme which would include examining any barriers to the successful rolling out of personal budgets and direct payments, the impact on areas for investment and on present levels of support provided to people, the business systems in place, risks and benefits, and auditing direct payments.
Review of Mental Health Services - At the request of the Executive Lead Councillor for Adult Social Care and Health, a task group had been set up to investigate mental health provision The purpose of the review was to consider whether the current configuration of services was the best way of delivering our statutory functions both now and in the medium term. It would look at how the service addressed the needs of people, whether outcomes were being delivered, and the effectiveness and VFM of the current configuration of services.
Future reviews
The Panel would be reviewing the performance of the North West Ambulance Service with special reference to response times in rural areas and acute hospital and ambulance service quality accounts in March 2011.
Page 372 Care Quality Commission
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) was keen to develop strong links with health scrutiny committees. It was the main regulatory body for any organisation that provided statutory health or adult social care. The Chairman and Scrutiny Officer would investigate ways that information gained by Members from constituents in this respect can be recorded in order to identify any patterns. The CQC did not deal with individual complaints.
NHS White Paper
The NHS White Paper would have implications for the scrutiny of health provision. Clarification is awaited regarding the precise role of the new Health and Wellbeing Boards and how scrutiny would fit in, especially as the Council would be taking a larger role with regard to public health and there would no longer be any statutory scrutiny function.
AGREED: That
the updates provided by the Chairmen on the work of the Select Panel be noted.
39 WORK PLAN The Committee discussed its work programme for the remainder of the Municipal Year.
It was noted that the Committee had received a request from Mr David Roston to review Council owned farms. The Committee noted that the current strategy for council owned farms, which it had inherited from the former Cheshire County Council, would mature in 2013. It was agreed that an in-depth review would be carried out and that it was important to give every opportunity for all interested parties to have their say and make full use of all communication methods. It was felt important to let current tenants know about the review before the consultation and publicity started. It was agreed that the review would need to be carried out over several months and possibly last longer than the current Municipal Year.
AGREED: That
(1) the draft work plan be approved;
(2) a review of the Council Farm Estate be carried out;
(3) Councillor Andrew Dawson, Councillor Myles Hogg and Councillor Eleanor Johnson prepare a project plan for Council Farm Estate Review and submit this to the 13 October Committee meeting.
40 EVALUATION OF SCRUTINY FUNCTION Cheshire West and Chester Council had invited the Centre for Public Scrutiny to undertake an evaluation of its scrutiny function. The evaluation had been carried out and a report produced which contained fifteen recommendations for improvement. The Committee discussed the content of the report and how it felt
Page 373 each of the recommendations should be taken forward. Overall it was felt that the scrutiny function had made solid progress in its first full year. One area of concern was effective challenge to the Executive.
AGREED: That
(1) a series of workshops be held to explore the issues raised in the report. Councillors Brian Clarke, Eleanor Johnson and Pamela Hall to prepare an outline plan;
(2) the comments in the report relating to the scrutiny structure be noted and be further discussed at the planned workshops;
(3) pre-meetings to plan questions be considered by the Chairmen where appropriate;
(4) the principle of reviewing fewer issues in more depth be supported;
(5) the current procedure where the Scrutiny Chapter determines which Committee/Panel determines a call-in be continued;
(6) scrutiny Chairmen to liaise with Policy Development Boards over work plans;
(7) scrutiny Chairmen to work with the Scrutiny Team to ensure reports submitted meet the requirements of scrutiny;
(8) minutes of scrutiny meetings be shorter and more action focused;
(9) Councillor Tom Parry to investigate the use of the Forward Plan;
(10) contacts data base to be established to ensure those interested in a particular issue are invited to contribute to scrutiny reviews;
(11) submitting scrutiny reports to Executive and Council to be considered at workshops;
(12) ways of providing challenge to the Executive be discussed at workshops;
(13) Councillor Eleanor Johnson to prepare analysis of success factors in the “Our Children Matter; 39 Steps” report;
(14) social media be used as widely as possible to encourage greater awareness of, and participation in, scrutiny;
(15) scrutiny meetings to be held in council buildings unless there is an agenda item specific to a particular area or venue;
(16) the scrutiny of partnerships be discussed at the workshops.
Page 374
41 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no other business the Chairman considered as urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 375 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 376 COMMUNITY SELECT PANEL 27 SEPTEMBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 8.58 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor John Grimshaw (Chairman)
Councillors Bob Barton, Terry Birtwistle, Linda Cooper, Brian Crowe, Paul Donovan, Scott Mealor, Andrew Needham, Keith Wilson, Kathy Lord (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Keith Board) and Tony Sherlock (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Pam Booher)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith Board, Pam Booher and Pamela Hall
Reserve Members: Councillors Kathy Lord (in place of Councillor Keith Board) and Tony Sherlock (in place of Councillor Pam Booher)
Officers in attendance: Steve Kent − Director of Community and Environment Cliff Mallows − Head of Regeneration Iain Paton − Business Support and Engagement Manager David Jones − Scrutiny Team
13 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of personal or prejudicial interests.
14 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
15 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of the meetings held on 21 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
16 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/ OPEN SESSION There were no questions from the public.
17 SUPPORTING BUSINESSES THROUGH THE RECESSION The Panel considered a report of Cliff Mallows, Head of Regeneration, which provided an overview of the work undertaken by the Council and its partners to support businesses, individuals and communities during the continuing recession.
Mr Frank Titley of Blue Orchard which was the Council’s approved business start- up provider was present at the meeting. He informed the Panel of the work of the organisation which was funded by the North West Development Agency. As well as providing all aspects of support for business start-ups, it also directed potential
Page 377 businesses to other agencies as appropriate, for example with regard to debt advice.
Blue orchard used a number of community centres such as libraries to meet clients who were considering self-employment and encouraged those in the black economy to engage in legitimate businesses. It mainly dealt with small businesses such as hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, etc. The main offices of Blue Orchard were based in Liverpool and Manchester and delivered services locally via the Enterprise Centre in Chester.
In response to a Member’s question regarding the number and location of businesses that had been helped it was agreed that Members would be provided with the figures by postcode.
The report outlined the key focus for recession recovery which was via the Council’s Economic Recession Action Plan delivered by the Recession Recovery Committee. The Recession Recovery Committee was undertaking a review of its current work programme. Businesses receiving financial aid would be required to provide match funding. Members discussed the lack of entrepreneurs within the Ellesmere Port area. This was largely due to a history of Ellesmere Port having major employers. The Council aimed to support businesses, for example with regard to the prompt payment of invoices.
It was noted that between 25% and 30% of all enquiries led to a business being set up and of these between 65% - 70% were still trading after three years. Members discussed the effect of planning regulations on businesses wishing to start up in rural areas. The Council’s regeneration service had 1200 interventions over the past year with a number of companies looking to relocate within the Cheshire West and Chester area. It was recognised that Cheshire had an extensive skills base. The matching of college courses with vacancies was an issue that needed to be addressed as many academic courses did not have the corresponding jobs available once students had graduated.
AGREED: That
(1) the report be noted and Frank Titley thanked for his attendance.
(2) the Community Select Panel be provided with the dates of future meetings of the Recession Recovery Committee.
(3) a list of those businesses helped by postcode be forwarded to Members.
(4) a briefing note be circulated to Members of the Panel providing details of economic support programmes and a link to the website.
18 REVIEW OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE - UPDATE ON RECOMMENDATIONS MADE The Panel considered a report of Kevin Carroll, Highways Network Manager, highlighting progress made on the recommendations contained within the Review of Highway Maintenance report and on the results of the consultation undertaken with town and parish councils. The service had acted on all the recommendations within the original report and had used information gained from the consultation
Page 378 exercise to ensure that the correct priorities were addressed. The consultation had highlighted the main concern of town and parish councils which was with regard to the poor condition of many minor roads.
There had generally been an improving standard of road repairs. More permanent pothole repairs had been undertaken especially within the old Vale Royal area. The Council had been in contact with the utility companies and was checking all repairs undertaken by them in detail through the month of October. The funding from the Government of £700,000 for road repairs had now been spent. The Department would be reviewing its highway fault reporting page on the Council’s website with a view to improving it. The Council’s customer contact centre was receiving an increasing number of calls with regard to highway maintenance issues and the target for immediate response was 80%. At the moment the response rate was 50%. The Service was undertaking a number of promotional events including one at the Tesco store in Helsby.
The recent review of capital expenditure undertaken with the public had shown that highway maintenance was a major priority for them.
AGREED: That
the Panel endorses the good progress made to date in addressing the recommendations of the Highways Maintenance Review and continues to monitor the capital bid.
19 WINTER SERVICE REVIEW The Panel considered a report of Kevin Carroll, Senior Manager, Highways Network Management, on the Winter Maintenance Programme for 2010/2011. The following was noted:
• Footpaths were generally not salted as part of the highways route though there could be a wider spread when highways were being salted.
• Pre-salting cost approximately £10,000 per 125,000 square metres. The Cheshire West and Chester authority salted at a higher rate than many other similar sized authorities.
Members discussed the possibility of councillors using part of their area budget allocation for salting footpaths.
AGREED: That
the report be endorsed and the Panel monitor the implementation of the Winter Maintenance Programme.
20 CHILDREN KSI TASK GROUP - PROGRESS REPORT The Panel considered a report of the Scrutiny Officer highlighting progress on the Task Group set up to examine the increase in figures for children killed or seriously injured during 2009. It was noted that no children had been killed during this period.
Page 379 AGREED: That
the final report from the Children KSI Task Group be submitted to the next meeting of the Select Panel on 22 November 2010.
21 WORK PLAN The Panel considered its Work Plan for the remainder of the Municipal Year. The Director of Community and Environment commented that he and the Director of Regeneration and Culture were currently reviewing estate management in the borough and would report back at a future meeting
AGREED: That
the work plan be endorsed and Members forward to the Scrutiny Officer any other issues they think may be worthy of consideration by this Panel.
22 NEXT MEETING AGREED: That
the next meeting of this Committee be held on 22 November 2010 at 6.30pm at Wyvern House in Winsford.
23 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no other items of other business which the Chairman considered urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 380 LICENSING COMMITTEE 28 SEPTEMBER 2010 (10.00 am - 11.30 am)
PRESENT: Councillor Brian Crowe (Chairman)
Councillors Eleanor Johnson (Deputy Chairman), Kate Birtwistle, Pam Booher, Razia Daniels, Kathy Lord, Pat Lott, George Miller, Stuart Parker, Charlie Parkinson and Barbara Roberts
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith Board, Lynn Clare, Graham Smith and Alex Tate
Officers in attendance: Andy Challinor − Regulatory Services Manager (Compliance & Commercial Support) Judith Bramhall − Senior Solicitor Phil Dickaty − Licensing Enforcement Officer Stephanie Cornes − Democratic Services Officer
14 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Member Item Reason Action Councillor Razia 5 Personal – lives Took part in the Daniels close to where consideration of one of the this item. proposed taxi ranks in Lower Bridge Street would be sited. Councillor Kathy 5 Personal – Ward Took part in the Lord Councillor consideration of this item.
15 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - OPEN SESSION
(1) Pete Jones – Secretary, Ellesmere Port & Neston Private Hire Association
Mr Jones addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding the proposed part time evening/night time Hackney Carriage Stands/Ranks at Woodland Road, Great Sutton and Ledsham Road, Little Sutton.
(2) Tommy Owens – Ellesmere Port Hackney Carriage Association
Mr Owens addressed the Committee and expressed his support for the proposed part time evening/night time Hackney Carriage Stands/Ranks at Woodland Road, Great Sutton and Ledsham Road, Little Sutton.
Page 381 The Chairman thanked both speakers for attending and stated that the Licensing Team would be happy to meet with either trade to discuss any issues of concern.
16 MINUTES DECIDED: That
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on 27 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
17 DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL PART-TIME EVENING/NIGHT TIME HACKNEY CARRIAGE STANDS/RANKS AT WITTON STREET, NORTHWICH; MAIN STREET, FRODSHAM; WOODLAND ROAD, GREAT SUTTON; LEDSHAM ROAD, LITTLE SUTTON AND LOWER BRIDGE STREET, CHESTER - S63 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 Members received a report outlining a number of enforcement issues relating to illegal parking by hackney carriage proprietors associated with a lack of rank space within the Vale Royal and Ellesmere Port & Neston hackney carriage zones.
The report also outlined requests made by the hackney carriage trade for additional rank space within the Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester hackney carriage zones.
Members were requested to consider the application for each location and then make recommendations to Executive to approve the designation and subsequent advertising of the new part-time evening/night-time hackney carriage stands/ranks on: Witton Street, Northwich; Woodland Road, Great Sutton; Ledsham Road, Little Sutton and Lower Bridge Street, Chester.
Members noted that the application for an additional hackney carriage rank on Main Street, Frodsham had been withdrawn.
Hackney carriage vehicles were often one of the few ways in which late-night visitors can obtain transportation out of the city/town centre. By virtue of being available for immediate hire, it was thought that the role of such vehicles were crucial in reducing late-night disturbance and anti-social behaviour.
The Highways Department and the Police supported the proposed locations for the hackney carriage stands/ranks detailed in the report.
The Chairman suggested dealing with each rank separately for ease of purpose.
Members noted that there was a typing error on the report at 4.1.1, where it referred to operating times of between 8.00 pm and 5.00 pm. The operating times should have been between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am.
Witton Street, Frodsham
This rank was welcomed and it was noted that there was no provision for hackney carriage vehicles to meet the high demand for evening/night-time transportation in this area, other than for hackney carriage vehicles to wait on a non-designated area of the highway.
Page 382 Woodland Road, Great Sutton
Whilst it was acknowledged that this was a busy area, some concerns were raised with the location of the rank being in close proximity to residential property.
Members were reassured that residents/members of the public would have an opportunity to make a representation once public notice was given (subject to approval by Executive).
Ledsham Road, Little Sutton
Members noted that there was currently no provision for a hackney carriage rank in Little Sutton and were supportive of this application.
Lower Bridge Street, Chester
The Committee were reminded that this was a re-submission of a request for designation of a new hackney carriage stand/rank in this area.
Some concerns were raised regarding the proposal for a hackney carriage rank for three vehicles, as opposed to the original proposed of two vehicles. It was noted that the new location could accommodate three vehicles.
It was also suggested and subsequently agreed, that the proposed operating times should be between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am, in order to have consistency between all the ranks.
RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTIVE: That
(1) Approval be given to the designation of part-time hackney carriage stands/ranks operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am on the following lengths of road:
Witton Street, Northwich
Hackney carriage stand/rank for ten vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 14 metres west of its junction with Venables Road for a distance of 62 metres in a westerly direction.
Woodland Road, Great Sutton (south side)
Hackney carriage stand/rank for two vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 60 metres east of its junction with Chester Road for a distance of 11 metres in a westerly direction.
Ledsham Road, Little Sutton (north side)
Hackney carriage stand/rank for two vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 10 metres east of the common boundary of numbers 11 and 13 Ledsham Road for a distance of 10 metres in a westerly direction.
Page 383
Lower Bridge Street, Chester
Hackney carriage stand/rank for three vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 52 metres south of its junction with Grosvenor Street/Pepper Street for a distance of 15 metres in a southerly direction.
(2) In the event of no objections being received within the period specified in the notice, the hackney carriage stands/ranks be appointed as set out in the report and the public notice.
Chairman
Date
Page 384 CORPORATE SELECT PANEL 4 OCTOBER 2010 (5.00 pm - 7.50 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Pat Merrick (Chairman)
Councillors Brian Bailey, Derek Bateman, Brian Anderson (Deputy Chairman), Keith Board and Mark Ingram
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Malcolm Byram and Alan McKie
Visiting Members: Councillors Bob Barton
Officers in attendance: Laurence Ainsworth − Senior Manager-Policy Alison Armstrong − Local Strategic Partnerships Director Sonja Booth − Democratic Services Officer Noel O'Neill − Head of Facilities and Assets Management Mandy Ramsden − Senior Manager - Democratic Services Penny Housley − Senior Manager-Overview and Scrutiny Andrea Thwaite − Scrutiny Team
19 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of personal or prejudicial interests.
20 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
21 QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION There were no questions from the public.
22 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
23 FEEDBACK FOLLOWING TOUR OF WEST WINSFORD As part of the scrutiny review Tackling Pockets of Deprivation, a group of Panel Members, prior to the meeting, visited West Winsford – a Neighbourhood Management area. The Panel saw examples of some excellent neighbourhood working such as a sustainable, organic allotment garden that would provide locally grown food at affordable prices; Community Houses; and how residents of Greenfields Park and Glebe Green benefited from the services of the Green Doctor Project.
Page 385
The group also visited The Edge Community Centre, run by WINCAP (Winsford Community Action Project.). People of all ages, abilities and from all walks of life play an active role within the Centre. Their involvement helped promote personal development, self-esteem and self-confidence. Members were encouraged by what they saw and recognised that what worked well in some areas would not necessarily work in others. The Over Children’s Centre was also visited, where examples of childcare, health, family and support services being offered from one central base was provided. They also learnt that anti-natal services would soon be offered from the centre, especially to the younger mums-to-be.
The Chairman expressed her admiration for the work of communities that had been visited during the afternoon and she felt that every community needed a community centre similar to The Edge. She felt that West Winsford had some excellent examples of community working that could inform the “Our Place” approach in Ellesmere Port. In turn that she felt the “our place” approach would benefit the residents of West Winsford.
Members who participated in the visit agreed that the Over Estate’s built environment had improved over recent years.
The Panel agreed that as all areas within Cheshire West and Chester Borough were different no standard template could be used, but examples of good practice should be identified. It also agreed that the Ellesmere Port Our Place Team should be encouraged to visit the Edge Community Centre. The group had witnessed some excellent examples of community working and agreed that their review would benefit from receiving statistical data on the usage of Edge Community Centre and community houses in West Winsford.
The Panel agreed to visit areas of multiple deprivation in Blacon and Lache before their next meeting on 6 December 2010.
AGREED: That
1. statistical data on the usage of the Edge Community Centre, Over Children’s Centre and the community house be circulated to the Panel.
2. the Scrutiny Team liaise with the relevant Area Teams to arrange for the Panel to visit areas of multiple deprivation in Lache and Blacon.
24 CAPITAL VISION - LATEST PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPS The Panel received a presentation from Laurence Ainsworth, Senior Policy Manager relating to the Council’s 10 Year Capital Vision Programme. The report provided an overview, update and rational behind the Council’s vision and what schemes were included in programme. It also outlined how the programme would be implemented and what early messages had been received from the consultation exercises.
The Council had financial challenges, some of which had been inherited from the previous authorities. Some assets inherited were no longer fit for purpose or
Page 386 located in the wrong areas. Some communities currently had an over or under provision in their facilities. The Council’s aim was to balance its financial pressures at the same time as investing in its capital assets over the next 10 years.
The Council’s aspiration was to be more proactive in its approach to managing its capital assets but did not want to wait for government funding. A 10 Year Capital Investment Programme and funding plan had been developed. The plan was innovative, creative and addressed long term issues strategically. Managing capital assets longer term also enabled a more coherent approach.
The Panel was informed that the Council’s 10 Year Capital Programme had been launched in July 2010. The aim of the consultation exercise was to ensure that the Council was focusing on its communities’ needs. The initial consultation documents were circulated to residents via Cheshire West and Chester’s Summer Talking Together newspaper. Eighteen key proposals were identified and residents were asked to list their top 3 priorities in order of preference. The priorities where grouped together under 3 headings: a modern council; first class community facilities and 4 regeneration programmes. Early results showed that schools, highways and facilities for older people were identified. The Panel felt that these messages were easy responses and did not address the communities’ needs. Concern was expressed over the way some of the questions had been phrased and the type of priorities identified.
The Panel were concerned that only 800 responses had been received from the consultation and they felt that previous lessons had not been learnt from the recent Budget Consultation exercise. To ensure the Council gathered from its residents more accurately balanced opinions, the Panel felt that more consultation especially with young people, vulnerable groups and the elderly was required. Transport was a huge priority for young people but it had not featured in any of the questions. The consultation exercise had taken place over August which the Panel felt was not the optimum time to undertake such an exercise.
Laurence Ainsworth informed the Panel that the second phase of the consultation process was to consult with various Focus Groups and Question Time Groups. Initial feedback from the consultation exercises would be presented to the Executive in November 2010. The Council would face difficult choices in the coming months and years and it will not be able to afford to implement all 18 priorities identified. Some priorities may have to be delayed, reshaped or dropped over the next 10 years when the financial position would be different.
A response document will be presented to residents.
The Panel asked for clarification on how the Council would interpret the consultation responses and would any weighting be given to gain a more accurately balanced response.
AGREED: That
1. further consultation work be undertaken especially person to person and report back the results to the Panel at a future meeting.
2. further clarification be provided to the Panel on how the Council would interpret the response and what waiting would be given.
Page 387
25 REVIEW OF MEMBERS INDUCTION TRAINING 2008 The Panel considered a report of Mandy Ramsden, Senior Democratic Services Manager that highlighted Members Induction Training following the elections held in May 2008. Members were reminded that due it being a Shadow Authority that year’s Members’ induction had been unique.
Proposals were being prepared for training for new and re-elected Members following the local elections in May 2011. The Panel agreed that the Induction Training had been well received, though some improvements to facilitators, and external support would be beneficial in the future.
It was also felt that Members would benefit from additional support to enable them to manage their case work ie: representing residents. The Chairman suggested that a Mentoring/Buddy scheme for new Members would be beneficial, though the Panel agreed that lessons should be learnt from a similar scheme recently implemented by Cheshire Fire Authority.
Overall, the consensus of opinion from the Panel and the Visiting Member was that the training had been very good, especially for Licensing and Planning. Training within their own groups centred on local issues and case work and further training on Scrutiny would be helpful. Councillor Keith Board confirmed that a detailed telephone directory and knowledge on how to be a Councillor would be useful.
Mandy Ramsden thanked the Panel for their contributions and acknowledged that all Member needs were individual. She also reminded them about the support available to members from the Council’s Member Hot Line and Democratic Services Team.
AGREED: That
1. Mandy Ransdem be thanked for her report.
2. contact be made with Cheshire Fire Authority to explore their Buddy Scheme.
3. political parties be encouraged to undertake in-house training for new Members especially around local issues.
4. an up to date telephone directory, including a staffing structure and names, job titles and telephone extensions be circulated to all Members.
5. new and re-elected Members receive further training on Scrutiny.
26 PARTNERSHIPS - AN UPDATE ON LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS AND AREA PARTNERSHIP BOARDS
Following a request from the Panel, Alison Armstrong, Local Strategic Partnership Director, presented a report providing an update on the recent work and achievements of the five strategic thematic partnership boards and five Area Partnership Boards. The update was drawn from a more detailed self assessment for 2010/11 undertaken by West Cheshire Together.
Page 388
The report detailed how the Strategic Partnership Framework was shaped though only selection of the Council’s Partnerships was included. A review of all partnerships arrangements was underway, some of which were inherited from the previous authorities. The Panel were asked to consider how they wished to scrutinise partnership working.
Alison Armstrong informed the Panel that to ensure resources were targeted correctly and partnerships were still fit for purpose, a Partnership Audit Review would commence in the autumn.
A new Sustainable Community Strategy 2010-2026 for Cheshire West and Chester had been developed which was a long term vision for the Borough. All Partners have signed up to the Strategy, which would be underpinned by the Local Area Agreement (LAA). The Government had not yet decided the future of LAA but the document would be the delivery plan for the new Strategy.
Alison Armstrong reminded the Panel that Partnership Working was operating in uncertain times and positive partnership working was more crucial now than before. Partnership Working operated on a borough and sub-regional basis.
AGREED: That
3. Alison Armstrong, Local Strategic Partnership Director be thanked for her report.
4. a further report detailing the responses from the pending Audit Commission review be presented to a future meeting of the Corporate Select Panel that will highlight where partnerships are working and where improvements were required.
5. the Panel consider the further report and decide how it would scrutinise partnership working in the future.
27 COUNCIL’S GREEN TRAVEL PLAN AND CAR PARKING FOR COUNCIL STAFF The Panel received a report from Noel O’Neil, Head of Facilities & Assets Management relating to the Council’s Green Travel Plan and car parking for Council staff. A Planning Condition from the Council occupying HQ was for it to produce its own Green Travel Plan. The Plan would support the Council’s commitment to environmental sustainability in addition to it managing the impact its staff car use had on the local area. The Panel were informed that recent staff surveys revealed the following: 88% of staff felt that they required access to their vehicles in order to perform their job, 55% travel by car to work with a permit and that 20% of the workforce lived within 2 miles radius of HQ. The Plan would identify current arrangements and how the Council would minimise the environmental impact of staff travelling to work.
The Panel were reminded that a large amount of Shared Services staff were located in Chester.
Page 389 The Panel learnt that following the relocation from County Hall, an interim strategy had been developed that solely dealt with previous Castle Square permit holders. A review would commence shortly that would consider all Council staff parking, Essential Car User provision and what provision would be made for future staff car parking arrangements. All Chester based staff would shortly have their parking permits removed and any parking spaces available would be allocated on a priority needs basis.
Principles contained within the Council’s Green Travel Panel had been applied to staff based in Winsford.
The Panel expressed surprise that 88% of staff felt that they needed their cars for work purposes. Noel O’Neill advised that part of the process would be to determine what business need for car use during the working day under the new staffing structure there was, and to look at how this could be further reduced, for example through the use of video conferencing rather than travelling to meetings. This approach was welcomed by the Panel. The need to support staff in travelling to work using other methods of transport was emphasised by the Panel.
AGREED: That
1. the outcomes of the review of staff parking arrangements be submitted to a future meeting of the Panel.
28 CORPORATE SELECT PANEL WORK PROGRAMME 2010/11 AGREED: THAT
the work plan be noted.
29 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.
30 DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Panel noted the date of the next meeting being Monday 6 December 2010 at 5pm.
Prior to the meeting the Panel would visit areas of deprivation in Blacon and Lache. The visits would start at 1pm.
Chairman
Date
Page 390 PLANNING BOARD A 12 OCTOBER 2010 (4.00 pm - 5.57 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Ralph Oultram (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Storrar (Deputy Chairman), Bob Barton, Don Beckett, Brian Crowe, Kay Loch, Barbara Roberts, Alex Tate and Mark Williams
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Norman Wright
Reserve Members: Councillor Barbara Roberts (in place of Councillor Norman Wright)
Visiting Members: Councillors Razia Daniels, John Ebo, Arthur Harada, Andrew Needham, Richard Short, Bob Thompson and Adrian Walmsley
Officers in Fiona Edwards − Development Planning Manager attendance: Iwan Hughes − Area Planning Manager (North & East) Nick Smith − Principal Planning Officer Margaret Ingram − Solicitor Paul Johnston − Development Officer (H/ways) Jane Binyon − Democratic Services Officer
53 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Agenda Item No. 6
10/01755/FUL – Temporary car parking to provide facilities for demolished car parking during construction work (renewal of temporary planning permission 09/01163/FUL) at Sir John Deane’s College, Monarch Drive, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 8AF
Councillor Ralph Oultram declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he was a Governor of Sir John Deane’s College.
Agenda Item No. 9
10/12259/FUL – Erection of ground floor verandah with first floor balcony above to side of building at The Ship Inn, 18 Handbridge, Chester, Cheshire CH4 7JE
Councillor Razia Daniels declared a personal interest as she was a nearby resident.
54 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of Planning Board A held on 14 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Page 391
55 PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE REFERRED TO STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE No applications were referred to the Strategic Planning Committee.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS Planning Board A considered the reports of the Head of Planning and Transport that made recommendations for approval and refusal of planning applications, together with the Late Information Report circulated at the meeting as the information therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.
The Late Information Report referred to Agenda Items 7 and 9 (Minute Nos 58 and 60 respectively).
In order to allow members of the public to leave, if they so wished, once the application they were interested in had been discussed, the Chairman, in agreement with the Members, took Agenda Items 9 and then 8 first.
Notwithstanding this, the minutes are in agenda order.
56 10/01595/FUL - TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AT 4 BOWMERE ROAD, TARPORLEY, CHESHIRE CW6 0BS Agenda Item 5. This application had been the subject of a site inspection on a previous occasion (Minute No.122 (2.2.10) refers).
Present at the meeting was Paul Clewes who spoke against the application.
A Visiting Ward Member expressed concern about the application in terms of the adverse impact of the proposed development on the Conservation Area, and made specific reference to the proposed demolition of part of the existing front boundary wall, which he considered should be retained.
Members discussed the application and expressed concern about the size, scale and location of the proposed extension which, they considered, would have an unbalancing effect on the pair of semi-detached properties and would adversely affect the character of the street scene and the Conservation Area. Specific reference was also made to the narrow state of the road and busy junction in the vicinity, which would create parking difficulties during a period of construction work.
In response to a Member’s query, the Development Planning Manager explained the provisions governing Conservation Area Consent, and confirmed that such consent was necessary for the demolition of buildings above a certain size threshold, but not for the construction of buildings in the Conservation Area.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried by 8 votes for, 0 against and 1 abstention.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the following reasons:
Page 392 the proposed extension, by virtue of its size, scale and location, would have an unbalancing effect upon the pair of semi-detached properties, would adversely affect the character of the street scene and fails to preserve or enhance the character of the street scene and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Policies BE1, BE10 and H8 of the Vale Royal Local Plan First Review Alteration.
57 10/01755/FUL - TEMPORARY CAR PARKING TO PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR DEMOLISHED CAR PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION WORK (RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION 09/01163/FUL) AT SIR JOHN DEANE'S COLLEGE, MONARCH DRIVE, NORTHWICH, CHESHIRE CW9 8AF Agenda Item 6. This application had been the subject of a site inspection on a previous occasion (Minute No.65 (01.9.09) refers).
Present at the meeting was Dr C D Bishop who spoke against the application and Tim Brown who spoke in support of the application as the applicant’s agent.
Members discussed the application and requested clarification as to whether the concerns of local residents, that they were experiencing polluted surface water run- off from the site, could be attributed to the car park. The Development Planning Manager responded that it would be difficult to attribute this problem to the car park, particularly as the car park had been laid with an ‘aquadrain’ surface and it was also being claimed by residents that the car park had been little used to date.
A proposal to approve the application for a temporary period to 31 July 2011 was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be approved subject to:
(1) a condition that a temporary permission be granted until 31 July 2011.
(2) conditions 2 and 3 as set out in the report.
Note: Councillor Ralph Oultram having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application vacated the Chair and left the meeting room during discussion and voting thereon.
In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor Andrew Storrar (Vice-Chairman) took the chair for this item.
58 10/01900/FUL - VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 ON APPLICATION APP/2002/1456 - TO CHANGE THE TIE FROM BUTTS FARM TO EQUINE BUSINESS AT THE GRANARY, CHESTER ROAD, LITTLE BUDWORTH, WINSFORD, CHESHIRE CW6 9EY Agenda Item 7. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Page 393 Present at the meeting was Michael-John Parkin who spoke in support of the application and Richard Ellison who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant’s agent.
The Area Planning Manager (North & East) drew Members’ attention to the Late Information Report, which referred to additional information submitted to support the application, including projected budget figures.
Members discussed the application and the usual practice of Planning Board to require the submission of audited trading accounts for a minimum period of two years, when granting a permission of this nature, as evidence of the financial viability and sustainability of an existing business.
The Development Planning Manager reminded Members of the usual requirement, in the event of an application involving a new business that had no existing trading accounts, to grant a temporary consent to allow time for the submission of figures that demonstrated the viability of that business, on the basis of a temporary residence such as a mobile home. In the case under consideration, the dwelling concerned was a permanent residence, making it difficult to grant a temporary permission that could be controlled in the event that the business proved not to be viable. The Development Planning Manager advised Members that financial projections had been submitted but these were not audited accounts.
Members expressed concern that the application demonstrated insufficient justification in terms of both the financial test and functional need. Reference was also made to the apparent lack of access to the proposed development. It was clarified by officers that it was possible to access the stables from the Butts Farm courtyard.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the reasons that insufficient justification has been submitted both in terms of the financial test and functional need.
59 10/11469/FUL - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 8 NO. 1 BEDROOM FLATS AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AT LAND ADJACENT TO 4 HAMILTON STREET, HAMILTON STREET, CHESTER, CHESHIRE CH2 3JG Agenda Item 8. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Steve Wright who spoke against the application and Paul Andrew who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant.
Visiting Ward Members, whilst supporting the principle of developing the site and noting that there was a need to provide supported housing, expressed concern about the proposed development in terms of it being overdevelopment of the site, and a bland design which was incongruous with the surrounding street scene. There was concern about the massing of the proposed development, which was considered overintensive and overbearing, and having an adverse effect on the street scene and Conservation Area. The potential problem of enforcing the
Page 394 proposed parking restrictions was also raised, together with concern that the mature silver birch tree on the site should be retained.
Members discussed the application and, whilst supporting the principle of developing the site, expressed concern about the application in terms of its design, scale and massing, which they considered to be overdevelopment of the site, which would have an adverse impact on the street scene and the Conservation Area.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the following reasons:
the proposed development, by reason of its design, scale, and massing, would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hoole Conservation Area, and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of HO5 and ENV37 of the adopted Chester District Local Plan.
60 10/12259/FUL - ERECTION OF GROUND FLOOR VERANDAH WITH FIRST FLOOR BALCONY ABOVE TO SIDE OF BUILDING AT THE SHIP INN, 18 HANDBRIDGE, CHESTER, CHESHIRE CH4 7JE Agenda Item 9. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Stephen C Rogers who spoke against the application and Peter Miller who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant’s agent.
Members’ attention was drawn to the Late Information Report, which contained two proposed additional conditions, in the event that Members were minded to approve the application.
Visiting Ward Members expressed concerns about the application in terms of the potential risk to the health, safety and well-being of children using the play area adjacent to the proposed development, and made specific reference to exposure to alcohol and smoking, overlooking of the play area, road safety issues and children becoming lost, with children left at the play area, whilst their carers were in the public house, being considered particularly vulnerable. Concern was also expressed about the potential adverse impact of the proposed development on residential amenity in terms of parking problems, noise, odour, loss of privacy, the bland, uninspiring and utilitarian design of the proposed development, overlooking of the park, erosion of green space and the precedent which might be set for further such developments in the vicinity.
The Solicitor pointed out that, whilst there were a number of wider issues surrounding this application, for instance regarding trust and open space status, the application could only be addressed in terms of the planning considerations, and the other issues would be addressed, as appropriate, by other bodies of the Council.
Page 395 Members discussed the application and expressed concerns in terms of the risk posed to the health, safety and well-being of children using the play area, the adverse impact of the proposed development on the Conservation Area which would result from the industrial appearance of the structure, encroachment and overlooking of the play area and park.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried by 7 votes for to 1 against, with 1 abstention.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed development, by reason of its bland, utilitarian and uninspiring design, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Handbridge Conservation Area and would adversely affect the character and quality of the Strategic Open Space. As such it would be contrary to Policies ENV15 and ENV37 of the Chester District Local Plan.
(2) the proposed development would, by reason of overlooking and encroachment, erode the recreational function of Edgar’s Field park. As such it would conflict with the guidance in PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.
Note: Councillor Razia Daniels having declared a personal interest in this application remained in the meeting room during discussion and voting thereon.
61 APPEALS REPORT DECIDED: That
the information contained within the appeals report be accepted.
62 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 396 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 13 OCTOBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 9.10 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Dawson (Chairman)
Councillors John Ebo (Deputy Chairman), Malcolm Byram, John Grimshaw, Pamela Hall, Myles Hogg, Pat Merrick, Tom Parry, Brian Crowe (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Eleanor Johnson) and Bob Barton (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Charlie Parkinson)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Eleanor Johnson, Charlie Parkinson, Brian Clarke and Graham Smith
Reserve Members: Councillors Brian Crowe (in place of Councillor Eleanor Johnson) and Bob Barton (in place of Councillor Charlie Parkinson)
Visiting Members: Councillors Andrew Needham
Officers in attendance: Alistair Jeffs − Head of Policy, Performance, Partnerships and Transformation Laurence Ainsworth − Senior Manager-Policy Mike Dix − Senior Manager Leisure & Green Spaces Jane Middleton − Head of Strategy and Commissioning (Children and Young People's Services) Ric Turnock − Children's Centre Strategic Manager, Children and Families Beverley Wilson − Research, Intelligence and Consultation Manager Rachel Kerslake − Senior Marketing Manager Helen Pearce − Leisure Development Health & Wellbeing Manager Penny Housley − Senior Manager-Overview and Scrutiny
43 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest.
44 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
45 MINUTES Discussion:
The new shorter style of minutes was noted.
Page 397
Councillor Tom Parry briefed the Committee on his investigation into the use of the Forward Plan and outlined the four recommendations contained in his report. There would be a number of opportunities for different forms of examination and scrutiny without a Call-In.
The proposals were directed to ensure that Members would receive sufficient notice of decisions whilst ensuring the process was not too bureaucratic. It had been suggested that a number of Call-ins had arisen due to Members not receiving advance notice on decisions about to be taken.
Proposed Action:
The Committee were happy to move forward with the new shorter style of minutes, as recommended by the Centre for Public Scrutiny in its review of the Council's scrutiny function.
The four recommendations would be tried.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee should discuss proposed changes to the Forward Plan with the Executive and the Chief Executive and Directors before making any formal recommendations.
AGREED: That
(1) The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(2) Penny Housley, Senior Manager, Overview and Scrutiny to arrange informal consultation on the Committee’s proposals to change the Forward Plan and Individual Member Decision procedures.
46 PUBLIC QUESTIONS/ OPEN SESSION There were no questions from members of the public present at the meeting.
47 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE Discussion:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been monitoring the Council’s approach to equality and diversity for the past year. During this time officers had been questioned on the policies and procedures and a training session had been arranged for all scrutiny Members on how to effectively challenge Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs).The purpose of scrutinising examples of EIAs was to identify if the process was streamlined, efficient and effective. Outcomes would also be identified and reviewed.
At its meeting on 13 October 2010 the Committee considered a progress report on the completion and use of Equality Impact Assessments from Alistair Jeffs, Head of Policy, Performance, Partnerships and Transformation. The Committee had selected three Equality Impact Assessments, Children’s Centres, NI8 Adult Participation in Sport and Graphics, to challenge as it was felt these represented a broad spectrum of the services the Council provided, whilst allowing depth of
Page 398 challenge for each individual assessment. Officers responsible for each assessment were present to answer questions from the Committee. The three EIAs considered had been circulated with the agenda.
Whilst the Committee found there was commitment to improving outcomes using the EIA assessments that process was only partly completed and those EIAs produced raised concerns that this new process almost certainly needed refinement and some re-evaluation.
• From considering these three sample assessments and from the challenge session some matters of concern were identified:With regard to the EIAs for Adult Participation in Sport and Children’s Centres, issues relating to social deprivation and public transport/travel did not appear to have been highlighted in the assessments when they were known factors that did affect the delivery and uptake of Council services. These example issues were also known factors contributing to social exclusion and had been expected to be revealed in any EIA covering services where transport was an issue or where uptake of services varied with relative social deprivation in the community. The Committee expressed surprise at this apparent weakness and asked the officers to look at their EIAs more closely and consider whether there were weaknesses in approach such as not testing the apparent findings against known issues; • Officers indicated that the use and understanding of the EIA assessment tools differed across the Council and acknowledged the lack of consistency in approach as a whole and that different departments had approached the issue differently and had understood the EIA tools used differently; • It was interesting that the Graphics EIA indicated that it perceived its equality and diversity risks as ‘high’ across the board, where those for Children’s Centres and Adult Participation revealed a range of medium and low risks but no ‘high risks.’ • The use of EIA at ‘high level’ alone was of limited value, when, for example there could be marked differences of service delivery from say children’s centre to children’s centre or in adult participation from one part of the Borough to another etc.. Indeed simply looking at such ‘high level’ EIAs without access to the underlying data or underlying EIAs could present a false position. • The Committee was troubled that the impression created by the sample EIAs was that they should be more concerned about the equality and diversity impacts of the graphics the Council used in its publications than the delivery of services through children’s centres and adult participation in sport which instinctively they considered was wrong. The Committee were reinforced in their views after having heard of the care taken by the Graphics team in ensuring that appropriate imagery was used and when they knew from earlier work done with Children’s Centres that the availability of public transport to get to a children’s centre can be a major disincentive to parents in bringing their children to the centres. The same known public transport constraints were debated with the Leisure Services officers and a similar view taken.
Page 399 The Committee considered that an EIA should be a starting point for any scrutiny review.
RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTIVE: That
The tools presently used to carry out the Equality Impact Assessments be reviewed so that those carrying out the assessments are assisted in their task, assisted to produce consistent assessments across the Council, that they challenge and support the assessments being produced in the light of supporting evidence and data; and, produce an assessment showing the risks both before and after (as needs be) mitigating measures have been applied.
The corporate Equality and Diversity officer test the underlying data and assumptions made for each EIA against known issues and concerns and that each assessment be moderated against each other to ensure a consistency of approach across the Council.
AGREED: That
Equality Impact Assessments be again considered at Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 January 2011.
48 CAPITAL AND REVENUE BUDGET CONSULTATION Discussion:
Laurence Ainsworth, Senior Manager Policy, provided Members with a presentation explaining the six month consultation period. This outlined the various approaches that would be used. Members discussed the different methods of consultation.
Laurence acknowledged Members' concerns that the response rate had not been great in respect of the size of the population. Members were assured that engagement with schools would be carried out.
Proposed Actions:
It was felt that questionnaires slotted into other publications had resulted in them being overlooked by residents. It was suggested that future questionnaires should be sent out separately in order to make them more visible to the public. This could result in a higher response rate.
Public arenas and Community Forums would be used to carry out future consultation and to feedback a robust response document to the public.
The You Choose tool would be released October 2010.
A consultation document would be provided to the Executive at its December meeting.
Regular feedback to Overview and Scrutiny Committee would provide members with an insight of consultation and would feed into the budget setting process.
Page 400 AGREED: That
Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive regular feedback on the budget consultation.
49 PROJECT PLAN FOR REVIEW OF COUNCIL FARM ESTATE Discussion:
Councillor Andrew Dawson, Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, presented a report outlining the draft scope for the review.
A letter had been sent to all existing tenants of 'Council Farms' advising them of the review and inviting them to take part in it. Positive feedback had been received from tenant farmers. The review would take place with maximum publicity to ensure total transparency to the public. A webpage had been set up in the scrutiny section of the Council’s website to record all information related to the review.
The Chairman encouraged anyone interested in the subject to get involved.
Members welcomed the report and recognised it would act as a good scoping document for the review.
Proposed Actions:
The Committee should progress with the review.
Non-parished areas be consulted together with Town and Parish Councils, this could include residents and amenities societies.
A letter be sent to all those listed in scoping document inviting them to take part in the review.
AGREED: That
The draft scope for the review of council owned farms be approved.
50 WORK PLAN AGREED: That
The work plan for the remainder of the Municipal Year be noted.
51 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no other business the Chairman considered as urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 401 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 402 COUNCIL 14 OCTOBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 10.05 am)
PRESENT: Councillor Neil Ritchie (Chairman)
Councillors Brian Crowe, Malcolm Byram, Gareth Anderson, Kimberley Anderson, Brian Bailey, Bob Barton, Derek Bateman, Don Beckett, Kate Birtwistle, Terry Birtwistle, Pam Booher, Lynn Clare, Angela Claydon, Linda Cooper, Bob Crompton, Razia Daniels, Andrew Dawson, Hugo Deynem, Paul Donovan, Brenda Dowding, John Ebo, Les Ford, Malcolm Gaskill, John Grimshaw, Pamela Hall, Arthur Harada, Myles Hogg, Jill Houlbrook, Mark Ingram, Mike Jones, Reggie Jones, Kay Loch, Kathy Lord, Pat Lott, Richard Lowe, Justin Madders, Jan Mashlan, Alan McKie, Scott Mealor, Hilarie McNae, Pat Merrick, George Miller, Andrew Needham, Keith Musgrave, Marie Nelson, Ralph Oultram, Charlie Parkinson, Stuart Parker, Tom Parry, Lynn Riley, Barbara Roberts (Deputy Chairman), Tony Sherlock, Richard Short, Mark Stocks, Andrew Storrar, Alex Tate, Bob Thompson, Adrian Walmsley, Helen Weltman, Mark Williams, Keith Wilson and Ann Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Anderson, Keith Board, Brian Clarke, Max Drury, Eleanor Johnson, Herbert Manley, Graham Smith and Norman Wright
Officers in attendance: Keith Evans − Interim Head of Integrated Strategic Commissioning (Adults) Julie Gill − Director of Resources Simon Goacher − Head of Legal and Democratic Services Steve Kent − Director of Community and Environment Mandy Ramsden − Senior Manager - Democratic Services Steve Robinson − Chief Executive Patrick Sebastian − Democratic Services Officer Charlie Seward − Director of Regeneration and Culture Justin Smallman − Ernst & Young, Consultant John Stephens − Director of Children and Young People John Thistlewood − Waste PFI Contract Procurement Manager
56 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Councillor George Miller informed Council that Councillor Max Drury had been unable to attend any meetings of the Authority since 13 May 2010 due to health
Page 403 problems, and expressed his hope that Councillor Drury would be able to return to all his Council duties in the very near future.
On a motion by Councillor George Miller, duly seconded, it was
DECIDED: That
Council duly notes the reason for non-attendance of Councillor Max Drury and in accordance with the provisions of Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 formally extends the period of non-attendance to 19 May 2011 or until such time as Councillor Drury is able to attend meetings, whichever is the earlier.
57 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Member Item(s) Reason Action Councillor Mark Waste Personal and Left the Ingram Treatment PFI prejudicial interest – Chamber Contract: by virtue of his whilst the Affordability business connections matter was Ceiling with one of the debated and companies seeking voted on. contracts under the PFI proposals Councillor Mike Notice of Personal – by virtue Remained in Jones Motion: of his spouse being a the meeting Proposed JP in Chester during Closure of the consideration Northwich Court of the item. House
58 CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS
• 1st Mercian Cheshire regiment had returned from Afghanistan, with three homecoming parade events planned. Northwich & Ellesmere Port on Tuesday 9 November and Chester on Thursday 11 November;
• The Cheshire Pensions Fund had been recognised for its work at the Pensions Scheme of the Year Awards 2010 in the categories: best website design for a public scheme; and best annual benefit statement for a public scheme;
• Chester Football Club – had resumed competition in League Football as a result of the combined efforts of the fans, support from local businesses, and Members and Officers of this Council;
• Gave congratulations to the Renaissance Team on the success of ‘Rhino- mania’ delivering increased visitor numbers to Chester and raising £101k for the Black Rhino Trust Charity and the Hospice of the Good Shepherd as a result of the sale at auction of the decorated Rhinos;
Page 404 • Gave notice of Lord Mayor’s Charity Ball to be held on 20 November at Chester Town Hall;
• Gave notice of Lady Mayoress’s ‘Holiday Charity’ Fashion Show to be held on 22 November; and
• Lord Mayor’s ‘blog’ is now available online at: http://lordmayorchester.blogspot.com/
59 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION (INCLUDING PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS) A petition was submitted to the Council by Mr Phillip Boden that highlighted resident’s concerns in respect of speeding cyclists on the Greenway at Blacon.
Mr Kenton Barker addressed the meeting regarding the proposed waste treatment plans in Wincham, requesting that public feeling and views expressed be taken into consideration when Members debated the matter.
Mr Brian Cartwright addressed the meeting regarding the proposed waste treatment in Cheshire, specifically, planned provisions and the current levels of waste generated and treatment capacity already in place.
Mr Geoff Eden addressed the meeting regarding the proposed waste treatment plans in Wincham, informing Members on the issues of financial viability of the project, sustainability of PFI mechanisms, questioning the need for a new waste treatment plant in Cheshire.
Professor John Dearden addressed the meeting regarding the proposed Wind Farm on Frodsham Marshes by Peel Holdings, and in particular its environmental, social and amenity effects.
The Chairman thanked all speakers for their attendance, and indicated that the petition and statements made would be referred to the relevant officers and Executive Members for appropriate action in line with the Council’s protocols on public speaking and Petitions.
60 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the Council meeting held on 22 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
61 NOTICE OF MOTION - PROPOSED CLOSURE OF THE NORTHWICH COURT HOUSE The following Notice of Motion had been submitted under the provisions of Procedural Rule No.8 in the names of Councillors Pam Booher, Don Beckett and Brian Clarke;
Motion moved by Councillor Don Beckett, seconded by Councillor Pam Booher.
Proposed Closure of the Northwich Court House.
Page 405
“This Council believes that residents in the East of the Borough would be denied access to local justice if this Courthouse closes. Currently 87% of a sample of court users could not get to Chester, using public transport, in less than 60 minutes.
This Council believes that, in the absence of any proper financial management information, which the Council understands will inform the proposal to close Northwich Court House, and, which is understood will not be made available, must be a fundamentally flawed proposal.
All research points to a well utilised, well performing court that provides essential criminal justice in the Northwich / Winsford area. Any proposal to close the Court flies in the face of the localism agenda advocated by the Conservative Liberal Democrat Government.
Therefore, in view of the information provided as a critique of the Executive Summary (as detailed in the Agenda papers) the Council seeks to oppose closure and lobby Cheshire MPs to support this campaign to continue to administer justice locally and fairly by retaining the Northwich Courthouse.”
Members expressed support for the motion moving a minor amendment to include the following addendum proposed by Councillor Les Ford, and duly seconded:
AMENDMENT
“ If despite the above, Northwich Court House be closed, that this Council will offer facilities in Winsford and Northwich so that justice can still be delivered locally”.
Broad support for the amendment was expressed, and the amendment was CARRIED .
A short debate followed, with Members raising their concerns regarding statements contained in the Executive Summary that Northwich Court House was not currently fit for purpose.
A Member summarised and re-iterated a series of objections to the closure of Northwich Court House from individual Cheshire West and Chester Councillors that were, seemingly, not recorded during the consultation process.
A Member further expressed concerns with regard to the consultation process, and statements regarding access to Court facilities via public transport to the proposed alternative location(s).
DECIDED: That the Notice of Motion, as amended, be carried.
Note: Councillor Mike Jones having declared a personal interest remained in the meeting during consideration of the item.
Page 406 62 PETITION DEBATE: CLOSURE OF LIGHTFOOT LODGE RESPITE CENTRE AND OTHER CENTRES Due to Carer responsibilities, the petitioner Mrs V Carbry was unable to attend Council and speak on the Item. Councillor Angela Claydon read a prepared statement written by the petittioner that set out reasons for opposing the proposals to close Lightfoot Lodge, Sutton Beaches and Curzon House respite, short stay and day care centres. (A copy is appended to the Council meeting webpage). It was reported that the petition currently contained 3007 signatures.
The Excutive Member Adult Services, Councillor Brenda Dowding reported that the petition referred to a highly valued service, and raised issues of how people were treated. The Executive Member informed that the Council wished to address the matter by the provision of high standards as close to where people lived, in the best possible buildings. Members were apprised of the current oversupply of more than 20% respite beds costing £700k per year. Councillor Dowding re-stated Council’s policy to care for people in their own homes wherever possible.
Councillor Dowding informed that there were no plans to close Sutton Beaches and Curzon House respite short stay beds, and that there were currently no plans to close day care facilities at Lightfoot Lodge, Sutton Beeches or Curzon House.
The Executive Member welcomed the petition and proposed that the comments contained within the petition be used to aid formulation of the Council’s approach to respite and day care provision.
Members debated issues raised as a result of the petitioner’s statement, financial issues arising, their own concerns, and views in support of adult care provision.
DECIDED: That
the contents of the petition be referred to Executive to be taken into account when formulating future proposals.
63 TOPICAL DEBATE: COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO TACKLING WORKLESSNESS AND SOCIAL INCLUSION Councillor Kathy Lord introduced the debate. The following points were made in her introduction:
• The issue of the disadvantaged, and families who had experienced generations of un-employment.
• Those residents of the borough who were economically inactive and suffered from low levels of self confidence as a result.
• How low level skills, income, poor housing and poor health impacted on social inclusion and reflected on the general issues of community cohesion.
• Mention was made about the ‘Total Place’ project in Ellesmere Port, Partnership Working and recent events that helped to deliver positive and progressive outcomes in the area.
Page 407 • How benefit advice and the work of the Housing Solution Team help support people into employment via Council provided services and working with local businesses.
A Member welcomed the work being progressed by officers, staff and the portfolio holder to ensure people receive the correct benefits.
Further comments were made on the work done by the Council’s partners, including Job Centre Plus and the Voluntary Sector.
Members debated the issue of social exclusion and factors impacting thereon, welcoming the work being undertaken by the Council to address these issues, given the background of the current difficult economic times. Benefit dependency issues were further discussed as a matter of concern, and the need for job provision and challenges arising from budget cuts expected as part of the Government spending review due to be announced on the 20 October 2010.
DECIDED: That
the debate be noted.
64 REFERENCE FROM EXECUTIVE (08/09/2010): FIRST QUARTER REVIEW OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 2010-11 The Council considered the report of the Director of Resources concerning the recommendations made by the Executive at its meeting held on 8 September 2010 in respect of the First Quarter Review of Financial Performance 2010-11.
DECIDED: That
(1) following withdrawal of external funding, a supplementary capital estimate of £2,500,000 reducing the approved budget for the Renaissance scheme, be approved;
(2) a virement of £3,124,000 from the Primary Capital Programme to fund the St Thomas/Victoria School Amalgamation, be approved; and
(3) a budget virement of £6,719,608 from Adult Social Care (Integrated Commissioning) to Adult Social Care (Operations) to align Health Funding budgets with budget management responsibilities, be approved.
65 REFERENCE FROM AUDIT AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (27/09/10): FINANCE AND CONTRACT PROCEDURE RULES REVIEW The Council considered the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services concerning recommendations made by the Audit and Governance Committee at its meeting held on 27 September 2010 in relation to new Finance and Contract Procedure Rules.
DECIDED: That
(1) the revised Finance and Contract Procedure Rules be approved; and
(2) Section 20 of the Council Constitution be amended accordingly.
Page 408
66 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW - CREATION OF NEW KINGSMEAD PARISH COUNCIL Council considered the report of the Director of Resources that presented the draft Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2010 for the creation of a new parish council for the Kingsmead area of Davenham and Northwich. The Order would come into effect from 1 April 2011. The report set out subsequent amendments to the boundaries and electoral arrangements of Davenham Parish Council and Northwich Town Council.
DECIDED: That
(1) the draft Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2010 be approved; and
(2) responsibility for finalising the draft Order, including specifically the calculation of the budget requirement (i.e. parish precept) and Schedules 1 and 2 relating to the land and property and funds and balances to be transferred from Davenham Parish Council and Northwich Town Council, be delegated to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.
67 MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES DECIDED: That
Councillor Bob Barton replace Councillor Charlie Parkinson on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
68 NON-CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONS The Head of Legal and Democratic Services had received notice of 24 questions under Procedure Rule 10.
The Chairman gave clarification on the procedure that would be adopted.
The Chairman informed that as web viewers had access to questions submitted in advance of the meeting, in the interest of efficiency of the meeting, he would introduce each question in summary form.
Following consideration of questions 1-8 (including supplementary questions), and at the Chairman’s instruction a vote was taken to extend the Council meeting beyond the agreed 3 hour guillotine. [Council Constitution Section Rules of Procedure 13 Council Minute No. 49 (2) (a), 22 July 2010 refers]
At this point, the QUESTION was put:
“Do Council wish to extend the meeting beyond 3 hours”
MOTION CARRIED .
Page 409 The Chairman proposed that responses to any unanswered questions be included in the minutes, and should there be any matters arising from those responses, Members would be given the opportunity to follow up the subject with supplementary questions at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and that Audit and Governance Committee investigate procedures by which Questions were dealt with at Council.
At this point, the QUESTION was put:
“Do Council wish to extend the meeting to conclude consideration of Agenda Item No. 15, to receive the Minutes of Executive and other Committees (without question and comment), and then to consider the Part B confidential business Agenda Items No. 17 and No. 18”
MOTION CARRIED .
Details of the questions and responses together with any supplementary questions and answers are attached as Appendix A to these Minutes.
69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE There was no business under this item.
70 MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE, COMMITTEES AND PANELS DECIDED: That
the Minutes of the Executive, Committees and Panels included in the Minute Book published on the Website and listed in the Agenda be received and noted.
71 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING There was no business under this item.
72 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That
the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining item on the Agenda, pursuant to Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
73 REFERENCE FROM EXECUTIVE (29/09/10): WASTE TREATMENT PFI CONTRACT: IDENTIFICATION OF PROVISIONAL PREFERRED BIDDER (KEY DECISION) Members considered the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services concerning the recommendation of the Executive made at its meeting on 29 September 2010 in relation to the Waste Treatment PFI Contract: Identification of Provisional Preferred Bidder.
Page 410 DECIDED: That the provisional Preferred Bidder for the Waste Treatment Contract be endorsed, subject to the availability of the Government PFI revenue support over the life of the project identified in the report.
Note: in accordance with procedural rules (Section 13, paragraph 15.5 of the Council Constitution) the following Members wished their abstentions to be recorded.
Councillors: Kate Birtwistle Terry Birtwistle Malcolm Byram Andrew Dawson Hugo Deynam Jan Mashlan George Miller Helen Weltman Keith Wilson
Note: Councillor Mark Ingram having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item left the meeting during consideration of this item.
Chairman
Date
Page 411 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 412 CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL 14 OCTOBER 2010
ITEM 13 - NON-CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONS
QUESTION 1 FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN CROWE TO COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
The Core Strategy Consultation initiated by this Authority in July 2009 invited detailed comments on over 20 Topic Papers by 11 November 2009. Submissions by and responses to many organisations and individuals were made in time but only posted on this council's web-site four months after the closing in January 2010 of further consultations on revised Topic Papers . This followed several requests from me and I understand others and gave rise to some concern.
When the full set of submissions was available, it was found that there was a significant number with a common theme, logged anonymously.
Anonymity inevitably leads to suspicion whether justified or not. The whole process will be regarded as flawed if it is not clear and transparent to one and all.
1/ Can we be assured that anonymous submissions will not be accepted by this Authority in the future?
2/ Can we be assured that, in the present exercise, representations from agents without the details of their clients will similarly be discarded?
3/ Can we be assured that agents that have made previously recorded incomplete representations will be required to identify their clients and that this information will be added to the original statements that are on record?
4/ Can we be assured that no further consideration of topic papers with anonymous contributions will be given by officers or by senior members of this council until these requests are satisfied?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 FROM COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS
I understand Cllr Crowe’s concerns and can assure him that the length of time taken to get all of the representations on the web was simply down to the volume of responses received. Over 4000 individual comments were received on the topic and the Issues and Options Papers.
However, Cllr Crowe's primary issue relates to a number of representations made through a planning agent, where client details were not given. When searching the Council's on- line Spatial Planning consultation system the absence of these client details make it look as if representations have been made anonymously.
We are currently addressing this, so that a name will appear against all representations, where we have been supplied with such details, even if this relates only to an agent. However, there is no legal obligation for a planning agent to name his client and where representations have been submitted in this way, the Council has no grounds to disregard them. Page 413
Indeed, even where genuinely anonymous representations are received, the Council is still obliged to consider these, although it may decide to give them less weight.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 1 FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN CROWE TO COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
Can I ask the Chairman of the Local Development Panel if he will agree with me that the preservation of the Green Belt from the advances of unscrupulous developers and officials is absolutely vital to the protection of the environment for the benefit of our children and indeed, the benefit of, our grandchildren.
ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS
I can give Councillor Crowe an assurance that this Council will continue to preserve the Green Belt and open countryside wherever possible. We currently have 5 local plans in existence which do this, and the aim of the LDF process is to maintain this going forward. It has, however, got to be said that there are sometime occasions when exceptional circumstances come to light. A recent episode was the one for the application involving Chester Zoo. An element of that redevelopment did fall within the Green Belt.
On that occasion the developers had to go through an extensive planning process, and extensive justifications to explain why the Green Belt should be used for that particular purpose. It was then obviously determined by the Strategic Planning Committee who felt that the evidence that had been presented by the developers met with sufficient criteria to allow that application to go forward on that occasion.
As I say all applications that may be submitted in future will have to meet that sort of criteria to stand any chance of meeting with approval.
QUESTION 2 FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW DAWSON TO COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
Recently the community in Frodsham has been greatly concerned about the future of some 16 acres of green belt land off Langdale Way Frodsham put up for sale by auction. Such was the fear and concern that the community came together and raised of the order of £36,000 in an attempt to purchase all or some of the land. Many in the community were concerned by the prospect of an impromptu Gypsy and Traveller site that could have arisen, others were motivated by seeking to secure the long term future of the land in open agricultural use.
Whatever the individual motivation it was, it is clear that the largely unspoken and perhaps unmerited fear of an unplanned and unlooked for Gypsy & Traveller site was acting as a considerable driver for the community. That said the community feels it has good reason to be concerned given the number and history of impromptu sites being created in the vicinity.
As it was the 16 acres of land sold for £134,500, with the most expensive plot selling for more than £12,000 per acre. The community’s attempt to purchase the land was effectively outgunned. The price paid for these fields was way in excess of what one would normally expect for green belt agricultural land. Page 414
One of the purchasers of the land is now seeking to establish private allotments. However the agent for this new venture when corresponding with the community group who sought unsuccessfully to buy the land has hinted that if the venture fails they may have to sell their recently purchased land in 1 acre plots in an attempt to maximise their re-sale value. It would be wrong of me to ascribe any motivation to the writer of that correspondence or indeed those who sold their land recently at Langdale Way or even the agents acting for them. However it is clear that the fears and uncertainties associated with the potential for unplanned impromptu gypsy and traveller sites is a factor that is driving up the price of land on the periphery of established settlements such as Frodsham and is a matter which is causing great anxiety amongst those who live near such fields.
Given the coalition’s removal of the previous government’s requirements on Councils such as ours to have a certain number of Gypsy and Travellers sites could Cllr Stocks please set out the Council’s current and any developing position with regard to the planning for gypsy and traveller sites in our Borough and for any enforcement action should an unplanned site materialise in the Borough. Does Cllr Stocks believe that the removal of such national and regional targets may reduce the likelihood of a court suspending any injunction and thus give rise to a speedier return of the land to a lawful planning use than experience elsewhere would suggest?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 2 FROM COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS
The Government has removed a top down target for the provision of pitches as previously expressed through the regional spatial strategy. While Councils are still expected to make provision for Gypsies and Travellers in their area, from now on this should be done in accordance with local assessments of need. The Government has made a commitment to replace policy contained within Circular 1/06 on Gypsy and Traveller sites with new ‘light touch’ guidance, the publication of which we are awaiting. We are also expecting details of the broader planning reforms arising through the Localism Bill expected to be published next month. In the mean time, I’m not advocating that we sit on our hands, we are going to press ahead and get an up to date picture of the pitch needs in this borough.
The Government has quite properly said that residents should have greater influence over the future planning framework of where they live. Over the coming months we shall be engaging with residents around the borough to establish a locally formed picture of the real need.
Work is also progressing with the Gypsy and Traveller site identification study and we are undertaking detailed technical work to find sites that are both suitable and deliverable. However we believe it is sensible for the Council to take stock, and carefully consider the implications of policy changes before making specific proposals to Council.
In terms of enforcement procedure that matter falls within the portfolio of Councillor Lynn Riley, but I can say that development in the Green Belt is defined as inappropriate development and therefore deemed harmful in planning terms. We will continue to be proactive in terms of investigating unauthorised developments mindful of the prevailing and emerging policy background. Removal of RRS targets is likely to have little bearing on the likelihood of the Council successfully obtaining an injunction in respect of any particular unlawful encampment.
The question of need however, and that the need is to be assessed is usually just one of the number of factors weighed in the balance. Injunctions are simply a tool to be used to Page 415 freeze the status quo on any given site whilst the process of considering the merits of the development in granting or refusing permission runs its course.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 2 FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW DAWSON TO COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PANEL
Can you give some accurate or more precise timescales than the vague suggestions given so far.
ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MARK STOCKS
The exact timescale of publishing of Government legislation, I am not privy to. With regard to the Local Authority we are going to be reviewing this, and expect some reports early in the New Year on this issue. So hope to have some feedback. Although there are some implications of the policies, that will need to be taken on board. There has been extensive work, as Members will know, on the Gypsy site allocations but because of the change of policies coming through from Government, I think it will be inappropriate at this stage to go into that detail because we are going to be looking at the provision of those sites in different places.
QUESTION 3 FROM COUNCILLOR ALEX TATE TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
Could the portfolio holder explain why service users who are assessed as self funders, were informed that from 1 September 2010 they were no longer eligible to apply for respite care at Sutton Beeches and have been advised that they must seek any respite care from the private sector, and, was an assessment made of the private sector to determine the availability of respite care beds before turning them away from the Care homes they have been using until now?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
Cllr Tate should be aware that it was County Council policy that self-funders would not have access to subsidised Council services, when this Council took over their services we adopted the same policy. So this isn’t something that has happened on 1 September.
However, as part of the public communication regarding the refreshed Fair Access to Care guidance, which sets out to whom and in what circumstances the Council can provide support, a reminder on the existing guidance has also been issued. But - nothing was changed as far as eligibility for respite care is concerned; the policy remains exactly as it has always been.
All individuals receive an assessment of need - free of charge - and also up to 6 weeks free re-ablement, if required. However, if ongoing services are needed and the individual is a "self funder", the Council would not normally provide that service. BUT - an important point to note - is that if the required service were not available from the wider market the Council would always meet an identified need.
The real issue underlying this question is: “should the Council routinely provide support to those who are financially able to make their own arrangements?” Now the Executive did Page 416 consider the whole matter of Fair Access to Care on 14 July, this was following an extensive public consultation exercise. Cllr Tate, you would have been most welcome to come to that Executive meeting and express the view this council should subsidise those who are assessed as being able to fund their own care.
It appears to me that this council has a fair policy on self-funders accessing subsidised council services, and no one has yet suggested that it should be changed.
As far as assessing the private sector’s ability to respond to demand for respite care, there are currently over 180 vacancies in the independent sector within CWAC. Given that about 10% of our client group are self-funders, in a typical week this could mean that between 9-10 service users might need a placement. So – with 180 vacancies and about 10 people possibly seeking respite – I don’t believe that capacity is an issue either.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 3 FROM COUNCILLOR ALEX TATE TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
It appears that while this Council is cutting services, in addition to causing hardship by withdrawing the valuable service from such vulnerable adults, I do have a case that I can pass on to Councillor Dowding if she so wishes of someone who is a self-funder, who on September the first was told that she would no longer be able to use the facility at Sutton Beeches and she has had to find accommodation for a relative elsewhere at much, much greater expense.
This Council is also turning away a useful revenue stream covered by those able to self- fund their care. Does this Council not that consider it has a duty of care all the vulnerable residents, and all elderly people and their carers with such a need should be entitled to community respite care.
ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
Indeed, all those that need it should be able to access respite care, but the private sector also provides respite care, and if people have the means to fund their own care then it is not appropriate for public money to be subsidising those can afford.
We have a system for assessing need, and that is the system we use. If Councillor Tate has identified an incidence where that has been inappropriately used, then officers would be delighted to hear, because that is not what we are intending. We do our very best to support carers and anybody who needs care under this authority. I have already said that nobody will be turned away if they could not access suitable care from the private sector. If Councillor Tate would let us have details of the individual problem she has identified we will do our best to sort the matter out.
QUESTION 4 FROM COUNCILLOR BOB THOMPSON TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
Will the Executive member confirm that in this financial year the Conservative administration has applied a 3.75% reduction in funding for all residential care providers and would she remind members what the prevailing rate of RPI (Retail Price Index) is?
Page 417
ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
At Council on 25 th . February, when the budget was set, we debated the proposal to reduce the fees paid to residential care providers. I don’t recollect that Cllr. Thompson contributed to that debate.
When I defended the proposal I pointed out that the average cost of a residential bed in CW&C was £436 pw, this compared to £305, which was the lowest average paid in the North West (that was in Blackpool), so we were paying 43% more than Blackpool. If we look at average cost across the whole of the North West, this figure was £401, we were paying almost 9% higher than the average.
As a result of the Council resolution, from 10 th . April this year a 3.75% reduction in funding was applied across the board for all care homes and supported living services.
I freely admit that no one welcomes a reduction in funding – but that applies equally to the council - we all – including the private sector providers - must to find ways of becoming more efficient.
In difficult financial times such as these - this is unavoidable.
When considering the “prevailing rate of retail price index”, it gets complicated! The current Retail Price Index figure is 4.6% as at 12 months ending August 2010. The current Consumer Price Index is 3.1% for the same period. And the Average Earnings Index is 2.36%.
The normal rate-setting process for residential care services involves an amalgamation of 80% of the Average Earnings Index and 20% of the Retail Price Index, excluding mortgage repayments. For an April adjustment in fees, the figures published in October the previous year are used. On top of this calculation, a further Government Statistical adjustment is then applied to ensure spikes in indices are smoothed out over the years. The final calculation for April 2010 came out at -0.49%.
Thus the change in fees we have proposed, compared to the normal calculated change, was a 3.26% reduction.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 4 FROM COUNCILLOR BOB THOMPSON TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
Would Cllr Dowding agree though that we should be targeting the most vulnerable citizens, these are adults with severe disabilities cared for in parenting centres often run by charitable organisations. Would she please reflect on what this Council is prepared to pay. And would she insist that a longer term arrangement is agreed with out of county providers so that our most vulnerable continue to receive excellent support and that their parents receive the comfort that their adult son or daughter continue to receive excellent care for some period ahead and not on an annual basis.
Page 418 ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
I can assure Councillor Thompson that we will take into account the views that have been expressed, and I do know that some people are concerned at the level of fees being paid. We will take into account what is being said.
QUESTION 5 FROM COUNCILLOR REGGIE JONES TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
At a meeting of the Full Council held on 22 July 2010, Blacon Councillors presented a petition to the Chairman of the Council on behalf of Blacon residents. The petition called upon the Council to ensure that proper risk assessments are carried out in urban and rural areas to ensure that the needs of Adult Day Care users are addressed and that sustainable solutions are in place prior to any closures.
Can the Portfolio Holder advise me on progress with this matter to ensure the ongoing commitment of this Council to providing high quality care services?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 5 FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
As you say the petition requested that proper risk assessments and sustainable solutions are in place prior to any closure of Age Concern (now Age UK) day care services.
I think all members are already aware that the implementation of plans put forward by Age Concern to close their day services, has been delayed. This delay was at the request of the council and was to allow communities to be assisted to develop alternatives, if they believe the local day care service is vital to their area. Existing day care facilities are continuing until 31 st . March to provide sufficient time for sustainable solutions to be devised.
This support work in local communities is progressing well, but has not yet been concluded. I believe that, in Blacon, the intention is for the community to provide a service for 3 days per week, with Age Concern providing an additional half-day session. I understand that this is being progressed through existing local structures in the area.
So – yes – this council is committed to providing high quality care services. And – yes – we will make sure that any risks associated with change are fully assessed. And – yes – we will seek sustainable solutions prior to any closures.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 5 FROM COUNCILLOR REGGIE JONES TO COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ADULT SERVICES
The reason I asked this question was simply because I had not had a response to the Petition, and I would be delighted if she would just send by e-mail the response she’s just spoken.
ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRENDA DOWDING
Certainly. Page 419
QUESTION 6 FROM COUNCILLOR ADRIAN WALMSLEY TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
I speak on behalf of numerous residents of Chester who together with many Tourists to our City are alarmed and troubled about the harassment they receive when walking through the City Centre by so called "Chuggers" (that is short for Charity Muggers) who stop pedestrians and pester them to sign up for direct debit contributions to the charities they represent.
"Chuggers" are not employed by the charities themselves. They work for profit making agencies who take a significant proportion of the payments actioned by any direct debits signed up during the harassment process.
What is happening in Chester could well follow in the Town Centres of Northwich, Winsford and Ellesmere Port and I believe that this harassment and pestering practice is totally unacceptable. I would ask therefore whether the Executive Member would commence measures to follow the example of the likes of Manchester City Council and York City Council in banning these so called "Chugging" agencies from operating in their City or Town Centres?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 6 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
There are two principal types of activity that charities engage in and it's worth addressing both to understand the difference in enforcement powers.
Firstly, charities or their agents collect money (cash) for the charity. Some street charity (cash) collectors are required to register with the local authority, and the Council’s Licensing Team takes action wherever possible when non-registered street collections are taking place. However, most of the large charities enjoy a Home Office exemption that removes the requirement to register with the local authority.
The Council does encourage those charities with an exemption to notify the Council of any planned collections, so that the Council can seek to control the number taking place at any one time. This does rely on the charities' co-operation, however, as the Council does not have any enforcement powers. The Council will, however, respond to any reports of aggressive or over-zealous collectors.
Secondly, charities or their agents approach members of the public in the street (or on their doorstep) in an attempt to get them to sign up for direct debit donations and this is the activity that has become known as 'chugging'. Currently, there are no legislative controls on this activity. However, as is the case with the exempt charity (cash) collectors, the Council does seek to control the numbers of charities soliciting direct debit donations and will not give consent for this to take place on Saturdays. Again, this relies on co-operation as the Council currently has no enforcement powers.
I can confirm that York City Council has not banned 'chuggers' as there are no powers to enable it to do so. However, they do try to control the numbers in a similar way to Cheshire West.
Certain sections of the Charities Act 2006 that have not yet been enacted would introduce greater controls on street collections and 'chugging' (called 'charitable appeals' under the Page 420 Act) but it is unclear when - or even if - the relevant parts of the legislation will be implemented. We are arranging for briefing note to be prepared for Members and we have recently indicated to Stephen Mosley MP that any assistance or information he can provide in respect of the 2006 Act would be appreciated (this in response to the complaint referred to above). The 2006 Act would not stop 'chugging' but we understand that there would be a greater element of control.
Separately, there is a model byelaw, which, if adopted by Cheshire West, would potentially enable it to have a greater degree of control over a number of city centre activities that aggravate members of the public (e.g. surveys, selling subscriptions for services, credit card sales). The byelaw would make it an offence to advertise or solicit custom for a service or to seek market research information 'in such a manner as to cause obstruction or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to any person in that street or public place'.
It is clear that there would be some (potentially significant) difficulties in enforcing the byelaw because of the requirement to prove obstruction or annoyance. It does appear that this byelaw has not been widely adopted, and the reason may well be the difficulties of enforcement. However, we are making further enquires. If the Council were to consider introducing the byelaw, then there would need to be a review of the current situation followed by consultation with the public and other affected parties.
As you know, where powers currently do exist, the Council is very pro-active. For example, byelaws contained in the Cheshire County Council Act 1980 prohibit the hawking, selling or offering or exposing for sale " any thing" (i.e. goods) in a designated street without the appropriate street trading consent, punishable by a maximum £200 fine. A recent campaign to tackle ticket touts operating in the city centre on race days has resulted in the prosecution of a number of individuals and a sharp reduction in the number of touts.
I have heard from Manchester. They too haven't found any way in which this activity can be banned from the city centre.
However, they are currently in discussions with the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) to see if there is anything that can be done to curtail the activity of chuggers within the city. PFRA is a charity-led membership body that self-regulates all forms of direct debit 'face-to-face fundraising'
At this stage it's unclear whether they will be able to reach an agreement regarding the level of chugging in the city.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 6 FROM COUNCILLOR ADRIAN WALMSLEY TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
In view of the lateness of the hour, with the Chair’s permission I am happy to e-mail the supplementary question to Councillor Riley, and all members of the Council.
Page 421 QUESTION 7 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD LOWE TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
With the approximation that each and every one of us is caught on CCTV over 300 times a day, could Cheshire West and Chester take a review of all CCTV in the Borough to determine which has actually reduced crime, and which is simply street furniture that lends a spying hand?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 7 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
1. The 'Putney figure' of 300 set out above relates to a calculation done based on counting the number of CCTV cameras on Putney High Street and multiplying it by the number of high streets. In 2008 the Association of Chief Police Officers 'cast doubt on the idea that Britain has 4.2m surveillance cameras, saying the figure was based on a 2002 study which extrapolated from the number of cameras on Putney High Street in London. "We approach that figure with some scepticism' he said, adding that ACPO's CCTV strategy relates to the cameras run by local authorities – of which there are around 30,000 in total'.
In a written submission ACPO found that only 16 per cent of CCTV cameras were managed by the public sector, with the rest run by businesses and therefore subject to far less regulation'
2. The Council runs a well regulated CCTV service with circa 190 cameras overtly surveilling public space that the public has 24 hour access to in Chester (c130 cameras); Ellesmere Port (c130 cameras), and Northwich (c30 cameras). The council CCTV schemes are clearly marked 'CW&C CCTV', with a phone number for enquiries on the signs.
3. The Council's Community safety service is currently integrating the three legacy CCTV schemes at Chester, reducing the staff group from 18 to 12, and providing savings in repair and maintenance. We are currently working with Highways, assett management and other Council colleagues to further integrate systems, making further efficiencies in R&M and transmission for 11-12 onwards.
4. The Authority is subject to regular assessment by the Surveillance Commissioner, the most recent scrutiny visit and report took place in May 2010 and was positive about the public space CCTV system.
5. We do monitor very specific statistics for public space cameras in relation to how many and what type of incidents have been dealt with by each camera, we can also provide statistics on the number of incidents that have been seized as evidence from each camera. This of course does not offer the full picture as if we also consider the "Gill" report there are considerations given to installation of cameras in areas where crime is planned, in these areas CCTV often acts as a deterrent (particularly in car parks) and therefore statistics might show a low volume of crime, incorrectly interpreted by some as an unnecessary use of cameras.
6. It is certainly worth mentioning we are currently carrying out a full review of public space cameras in E-Port and Northwich. This will inform our replacement programme. We are very committed to only having cameras that deter or detect Page 422 crime and anti-social behaviour.
7. I'd be very happy to share the reviews set out above with Cllr Lowe, and he would be very welcome to visit the Chester CCTV control room and see the system and review recent footage of the kinds of events (theft, violence, misuse of the rows) that we have detected, examples of recent high profile convictions that CCTV has played a part in, and the kind of problem we have prevented - potential fires, for example.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION 7 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD LOWE TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
Could I request that if there any further CCTV implementations, that there be consultation with the residents.
ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR LYNN RILEY
As it will always, yes.
QUESTION 8 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD LOWE TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
How many RIPA cases has Cheshire West and Chester undertaken, and can CWaC ensure that anyone who is put under surveillance, innocent or guilty, is told that they were?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 8 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
Since 1st April 2009 (to date), there have been 17 authorisations for directed surveillance.
Breakdown The breakdown is as follows:
9 authorisations relating to test purchase exercises involving the sale of alcohol or tobacco to the underage (several premises per authorisation) 3 authorisations relating to ticket tout investigations (all connected to Chester Races) 2 authorisations relating to noise nuisance 2 authorisations relating to anti-social behaviour (including intimidation of the complainant) 1 authorisation relating to an unlicensed ice cream vendor
Detailed response about legalities in respect of informing or not informing people that they are being surveyed runs to several pages - in the interests of brevity tonight, I am happy to circulate to all Members of Council so that they can be included in the minutes.
AT THIS POINT - MEETING GUILLOTINE ENACTED. ALL QUESTIONS PROVIDED IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, AND WRITTEN RESPONSES, ARE SUMMARISED BELOW: Page 423
ADDITIONAL ANSWER DETAIL TO QUESTION 8 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
It's necessary to go into a little detail to explain the position. Hopefully, it will become clear that the decision to disclose (or not) cannot be dealt with by way of a blanket policy, but that each case must be judged on its merits. I would also point out that we can only use covert surveillance if absolutely necessary and there is no other option. The Council was recently inspected and there was no suggestion that the Council engages in unnecessary or inappropriate surveillance.
Background/Position Test purchase exercises (sales of alcohol/tobacco to the underage) (9 in total) It is often considered surprising that RIPA applies to test purchase exercises, and that a directed surveillance authorisation is required. An authorisation is required when an adult officer is present in the shop/pub and witnesses the test purchase, notwithstanding the fact that all that happens is a simple transaction and the duration of each test purchase is a matter of minutes. This counts as directed surveillance because there is a possibility (however slight) that private information about individuals (e.g. the shop assistants, licensee) may be obtained, as two individuals converse. The legal argument runs that the shop assistants may not have had the same conversation if they had known that an agent of the local authority/the state was present in the premises. We could avoid the requirement for a RIPA authorisation if we sent the child test purchaser into the premises alone. We do not do this for safety reasons. If no illegal sale takes place, we do not inform the individuals working in the shop that a test purchase has taken place. Again, this is to protect - as far as we are able to do so - the identity of the child. Of course, we take other precautions to protect their identity - for example, we do not carry out test purchases in or near the area where the child lives, and so the risk of their being identified is low. However, we try to minimise any risk of identification and so we do not disclose the fact that a test purchase had been carried out unless required to do so. If an illegal sale has taken place, then a formal interview with the Designated Premises Supervisor (and often others) will follow, and we will disclose the test purchase.
Ticket tout investigations (3 in total) A directed surveillance authorisation is required for two reasons. Firstly, it's required because we use CCTV to establish the location where ticket touting is taking place and to identify the individuals involved. An authorisation is required if CCTV is being used for a specific operation. Secondly, a test purchase is anticipated and so the above requirements apply. This scenario is then quite straightforward: either we indentify individuals, a test purchase takes place, following which they are arrested and interviewed and the surveillance is disclosed; or, we are unable to identify and apprehend individuals and the operation is unsuccessful. In fact, in all three operations to date, test purchases have taken place and prosecutions with full disclosure have followed.
Noise nuisance (2 in total) The Council deals with approximately 1,000 noise nuisance complaints each year. A proportion of these proceed to the investigation stage. The Council's RIPA policy states that noise nuisance investigations will be carried out overtly - that is to say, the alleged source of the noise nuisance must be informed in writing that noise monitoring equipment may be installed if the noise nuisance persists. The policy allows for covert monitoring to take place in exceptional cases - involving, typically, a credible risk of violence and/or intimidation. There have been two cases to date in which noise monitoring equipment has Page 424 been used covertly and, for obvious reasons, this will only be disclosed if absolutely necessary, i.e. if sufficient evidence is gathered and prosecution (or other formal action) ensues. The fact that we cannot gather sufficient evidence is not (always) an indication of innocence.
Anti-social behaviour (2 in total) The same principle applies as described above, in order to protect the complainant
Unlicensed ice cream vendor (1 in total) in this case, CCTV was used to locate the mobile vendor who operated in the city centre and outside schools. He was unlicensed and unregistered for food hygiene purposes, despite the fact that he knows the legal requirements. The file has ben submitted for prosecution and full disclosure will follow.
QUESTION 9 FROM COUNCILLOR TONY SHERLOCK TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
What are CWAC`s plans for making bids to the Government’s Sustainable Transport Fund?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 9 FROM COUNCILLOR MIKE JONES
Local Sustainable Transport Fund
I have been very concerned about the NW Regions RFA, currently being replaced by the Sustainable Transport fund. The concern it that schemes sit on a very long list for a very long time, many for decades. To spend time replacing one list with another seems utterly futile. CWaC does not have any schemes on the list currently. My personal view is that the Governemnt should delegate local road schemes to the Councils and let us get on and determine our priorities and allow us to retain tax for the funding of the projects on a sound business case based on a positive impact of the transport scheme on businesses, housing, residents and communities.
QUESTION 10 FROM COUNCILLOR REGGIE JONES TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
In 2007 thousands of residents voted for cycleway/footpath improvements as part of the Big Lottery Funds Living Landmarks; The Peoples Millions TV vote. This was backed by further consultation and support for schemes such as the proposals for a new footbridge linking Handbridge with Huntington and the Curzon Park Railway Bridge Footbridge / Cycleway. The intention was to create safer routes for pedestrians including wheelchair users and cyclists and at the same time linking the neighbourhoods of Curzon Park, Westminster Park, The Lache and Saltney with the City Centre and the Riverside Cycle Network. Funding was allocated by Cycling England and Chester became one of 18 Cycle Demonstration Towns across the UK.
1. Will the Portfolio Holder confirm the total investment lost to Cheshire West & Chester should funding be withdrawn due to the lack of progress made on these schemes by this Council?
Page 425 2. Given the significant community support for these schemes, will the Portfolio Holder confirm that alternative plans and funding are in place to ensure these schemes can be progressed, subject to planning approvals? 3. Can the Portfolio Holder inform the Council what position Chester is currently ranked as a Cycle Demonstration Town when measured against the other Cycle Demonstration Towns?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 10 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
1. The Cycling England anticipated contribution was £340k. Cycling England have had to withdraw this level of support in order to satisfy the Department for Transport’s expectations of in-year saving from their budgets. SUSTRANS are not withdrawing any funding from the area. Due to extra support we have secured from SUSTRANS we are, effectively, only losing £190k of grant funding overall in terms of the Cycle Chester improvements planned this year
2. Alternative plans have been designed and agreed with Sustrans for funding purposes and as stated above, have agreed to increase their funding support to cover all costs of the revised scheme.
3. There is no current ranking table available as all towns differed in the objectives, target numbers and groups and types of schemes.
QUESTION 11 FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW DAWSON TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
I have the pleasure of being this Council’s representative from Frodsham & Helsby on the steering group charged with the task of negotiating the Community Benefit Fund with Peel Energy for the windfarm that company plans to erect on Frodsham Marshes. It is Peel Energy that has offered this Community Benefit Fund as is standard now in windfarm applications. The provision of such a fund lies outside the scope of the planning application presently before the Council for consultation.
The steering group, which in addition to ward Councillors from this Council, includes the local Town and Parish Councils from Frodsham, Helsby, Elton, Dunham-on-the-Hill and others wrote to Peel Energy recently asking for more details of their future intentions regarding this offered fund only to receive what I personally describe as one of the most dismissive arrogant replies I have ever seen from a business to a community. Such is the offence that the steering group has taken with Peel’s reply that that group is presently contemplating a reply to Peel in the following terms:
‘The group has instructed me to express their frustration and extreme disappointment with your response – both in its tone and content. It is important that you appreciate that many in the group considered the tone of your letter and your failure to commence a meaningful dialogue indicative of the contempt they believe Peel has for the local communities potentially affected by your proposal. Many expressed the view that such a response demonstrates that Peel is not interested in being a good neighbour or entering into a meaningful dialogue with the communities regarding the community benefit fund that you have already promised to provide on the assumption that permission is granted and turbines installed.
Page 426 I have pointed out to the group that strident exchanges of correspondence or indeed ‘megaphone diplomacy’ between Peel and the communities may not ultimately get anyone anywhere. And so on that basis and notwithstanding the feelings and the impression your correspondence has created the group remains willing to have a constructive dialogue with Peel – but for this to happen both sides have to be willing to have a dialogue. I therefore look to you to revisit your last letter and provide the reasonable information that was requested which the group sees as critical to the CBF process .’
Could Cllr Riley please use her influence and good offices to encourage Peel Energy to change its present apparent bad-neighbour stance and could she also please ensure that this steering group has sufficient Council provided expertise and resources so that the group is able properly to deal with this presently dismissive business.
ANSWER TO QUESTION 11 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
We are currently working with a group of Councillors from CW&C and the Town and Parish councils to deliver the best possible community benefit fund for the communities affected by the proposed wind farm on Frodsham Marches. We are enabling the group to deliver:
• The socio-economic understanding of who will be affected and how we can divide up the fund between communities. • Agree how the money will be managed and if an independent organisation is required. • The maximum available fund from Peel.
We have asked Peel directly for two main things:
• A starting figure on which we can base our negotiations. • Financial support for the costs of professional advice.
Despite Peel saying they want this to be genuine community engagement they have not provided us with the information requested and the group feel they are not genuine in what they are saying. They advised they would not support the group for professional advice and cannot give us a figure to work from for the settlement till planning is in place.
We are currently following up in a number of ways:
• We are writing to Peel again to reiterate our request. • The issue will be discussed at the next high level meeting with Peel to see if we can get them to be more cooperative with the community. • We are working to get information from experts and looking at comparables from other wind farm CBF’s around the country.
Page 427 QUESTION 12 FROM COUNCILLOR ANGELA CLAYDON TO COUNCILLOR RICHARD SHORT, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR CULTURE AND RECREATION
Given concerns expressed from the Unions about the transfer of leisure staff to the Community interest company, does he wish to revisit his assurance given at the Executive that no staff will be made redundant as a result of this exercise?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 12 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD SHORT
The creation of the CIC for leisure will not in itself lead to redundancies. Appropriate staff will be transferred into the CIC to enable effective and efficient leisure provision and improve service outcomes across the Borough.
Now that the services previously operated by CADSART have been transferred to the Council there is an opportunity to review back-office and management structures to ensure that the business model is fit for purpose and sustainable. This review process will be the subject of full consultation with staff and Unions, and is an intrinsic part of the kind of good management that we expect for all of our services. .
QUESTION 13 FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW DAWSON TO COUNCILLOR RICHARD SHORT, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR CULTURE AND RECREATION
Many of us in Frodsham were happy to celebrate the recent opening of Castle Park after its extensive renovation. Unfortunately it would appear that the arrangements for the celebration of the opening were not planned or executed with the care and attention that was perhaps needed. For example the Mayor of Frodsham explained at the most recent Town Council meeting that he had not been invited, then belatedly received a personal invitation but one containing a hand written note suggesting his invite was personal and not in his capacity of Mayor. Similarly the residents of Frodsham all received invitations - but little was done on the day to interact with the crowd that had gathered. I'm sure no slight was intended to the Mayor of Frodsham, to the Town Council, or even to the people of Frodsham but a less than helpful impression has been created. Unfortunately this incident and the decision to cut back on discretionary funding of the Frodsham Christmas Festival is being used by potentially politically motivated detractors of this Council to suggest that this Council does not give Frodsham a fair crack of the whip.
Could Councillor Short please consider whether an apology is in order with regard to what appears to have been the poorly planned opening, and as needs be make such an apology? And secondly can Cllr Short dispel any myths arising concerning this Council's continued investment in Frodsham in particular associated with his Leisure Services?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 13 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD SHORT
The launch event was primarily designed to acknowledge the contribution of key stakeholders and supporters to the success of this project and to meet the objectives of the Heritage Lottery Fund (one of the key funders for the scheme). In hindsight the community involvement could have been better managed and for that we apologise.
There is a broader programme of community engagement planned for the next few months including a key Enchanted Parks event for November/December designed to enable community celebration of the Park's completion. Page 428
We have also planned a specific community event in late January to enable the local people to help shape the use of the park and the plans for 2011 activities
The Council’s Leisure Services continue to make significant investment in Frodsham in addition to contributing 42% of the £3.2m funding for Castle Park
Frodsham Leisure Centre has seen £120k of improvements including New gym equipment, new circuit gym, integral Pa & visual upgrade, dance mats and enabling work for 3 former classrooms. Opening hours are to be extended (0900hrs to 2200hrs) from 18th October as a result of community/member request
The recent Leisure review has identified a potential further £2 million investment to the Leisure Centre as part of our 10 year programme of leisure enhancement.
QUESTION 14 FROM COUNCILLOR ADRIAN WALMSLEY TO COUNCILLOR ARTHUR HARADA, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN
I ask this question in my capacity as Chair of the School Governor Appointments Panel - a Sub-Group of our Audit & Governance Committee.
Would the Executive Member confirm whether Cheshire West & Chester Council has a policy as to the appointment of serving Council Officers wishing to stand as Local Authority Governors at Schools within our Borough boundaries?
Remembering that Local Authority Governors are POLITICAL appointments, Members of my Appointments Panel are very uneasy over this issue and are hesitant to act if a name of a Serving Officer comes before us for appointment as a School Governor.
I am fully aware of the restrictions included in the Local Government Act of 1972 referring to the appointment of Council Officers serving on Outside Bodies and that some Officer posts within CW&C are labelled as "Politically Restricted". Could I also therefore ask the Executive Member whether this Council follows the restrictions included in the 1972 Act and whether only those Officers labelled as holding "Politically Restricted" posts are forbidden for standing as Local Authority School Governors?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 14 FROM COUNCILLOR ARTHUR HARADA
The regulations on the appointment of Local Authority governors allow for any ‘eligible persons’ to be appointed. The only specifically excluded people are those that are on the payroll of the school in question. This is because although Local Authorities may appoint governors, they serve as representatives of the appointing body rather than delegates .
In some specific circumstances, and particularly where schools find themselves in difficulty, it is not uncommon for officers of the local authority to be appointed as additional governors bringing specific expertise.
However, I agree that this is an issue that needs further clarification and I would be happy to work with you in your capacity as Chair to develop clear guidance on this issue.
Page 429 QUESTION 15 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD LOWE TO COUNCILLOR ARTHUR HARADA, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN
A few months ago I asked about the Council adopting Stonewall’s Education Champions Programme, so that schools within CWaC can identify and understand the issues around homophobic bullying. Could he provide an update to this?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 FROM COUNCILLOR ARTHUR HARADA
The issue of homophobic bullying is one of the aspects that the Local Authority’s Anti- Bullying group has been considering.
The Stonewall materials have been considered by the Anti-Bullying group but it is for individual schools to decide what materials they use to tackle this important issue.
In addition, the Council’s Equality and Diversity group has carried out a consultation exercise with representatives of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual groups, including young people specifically. One of the outcomes of this work has been for a member of the equality and diversity team to receive Stonewall training in order to champion this important issue.
QUESTION 16 FROM COUNCILLOR JUSTIN MADDERS TO COUNCILLOR LES FORD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE
Editions of the Ellesmere Port Pioneer of the 15 th ,22 nd and 29 th September each have 6 or 7 pages of adverts or material sponsored by this Council. Does such a sustained level of advertising and sponsorship represent good value for money?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 16 FROM COUNCILLOR LES FORD
Answer Advertising in the Ellesmere Port Pioneer over the three weeks identified by Cllr Madders is as follows:
15 September
One page Our Place Quarter page advert Fostering and adoption Half page advert Golden Spanner – approved garage scheme Sponsorship title Our World – environment page
22 September
One page Our Place Quarter page Fostering and adoption Sponsorship title Our World – environment page
Page 430 29 September
One page Our Place Quarter page Elections – register to vote Half page Golden Spanner – approved garage scheme Sponsorship title Celebrations – fostering and adoption
The extent of advertising and sponsorship is far less than Cllr Madders suggests.
The range of subject matter is a balance between community engagement through Our Place and service campaign messages.
The Council has a duty to inform people about registering to vote and press advertising is an element within this.
The Golden Spanner scheme is administered by the Council but funded by the garages that are listed in the scheme.
The sponsorship titles are a cost effective way of associating the Council’s brand with positive and appropriate news stories.
The Council has a good relationship with the media and receives advantageous rates. Good value is achieved.
QUESTION 17 FROM COUNCILLOR JUSTIN MADDERS TO COUNCILLOR LES FORD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE
At this time of financial uncertainty, should the Council be spending £10,000 on an internet TV station?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 17 FROM COUNCILLOR LES FORD
YES
At times of uncertainty it is important that the Council has strong and effective ways to engage and inform residents. It is also equally important that communities are supported and enhanced.
The Council and its partners – public and private sector (Police, Fire, Bank of America) - are supporting the creation of a video website to meet the increasing demand for videos from the community and to create an online video community.
This website will be self-funding and managed by a private sector company. It will be a place where the Council can place webcasts of Council meetings - enhancing democracy – and where videos that show Council services can be easily accessed by the public – promoting the Council’s commitment to transparency in all it does.
The site will operate like a newspaper. If the content is news – uploading a video will be free. If the content is sales-based – uploading a video will be charged for.
Page 431 Response provided to Cllr Madders on 17 September by Pam Bradley
Cheshire West TV is an initiative the Council is launching in conjunction with a private sector company and its public sector partners.
The site will be self-funding and will provide the Council and its partners with an environment where they can place videos. There is huge evidence that video is becoming the preferred way for people - of all ages - to receive and gather information.
The initial cost of developing the website is £10,000. This cost will be offset over time as space is sold to businesses wishing to advertise on the channel. Revenue returns from the channel will be shared with the Council.
I hope this answers your questions. If you would like to discuss the site further and how we intend to use it to develop engagement with communities I would be happy to do this.
QUESTION 18 FROM COUNCILLOR JUSTIN MADDERS TO COUNCILLOR LES FORD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE
Why are we spending £10,000 funding Localis , a Tory think tank?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 18 FROM COUNCILLOR LES FORD
Localis is an independent think-tank that specialises in issues related to local government and localism. They carry out research in local public services and facilitate a network of public service based members.
In consultation with the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council, Cheshire West and Chester Council have taken a 3 year membership which costs £11,000 p.a. (after a 25% discount on the annual fee). For this membership the Council enjoys a number of benefits. This year the Leader commissioned a detailed report looking at the best practice within our Policy Development Boards and suggesting new directions that they can be developed.
The report was based upon a series of meetings with Officers, Members and a cross-party survey of all PDB Members and those of Overview and Scrutiny. The report was circulated to all Councillors via a Members Briefing and a summary of the findings circulated to all senior managers within the Council.
Additional benefits of being part of the Localis network include a monthly Localis Newsletter and a 'Policy Platform' members publication and free copies of all Localis publications.
Cllr Madders originally asked this question about a non-existent company and was corrected by our officers. One can only assume that he would not know a Tory think tank if he saw one.
Page 432 QUESTION 19 FROM COUNCILLOR DEREK BATEMAN TO COUNCILLOR LES FORD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE
With central Government funding being cut from road safety partnerships, does Cllr Ford consider continued Council funding for speed cameras represents a good use of council funds or would he recommend switching them off as other local authorities have done?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 19 FROM COUNCILLOR LES FORD
To the first proposition is ‘No’ it is not a good use of council funds. Would I recommend switching them off ? ‘yes
There are a couple of caveats
The Cheshire Road Safety Partnership is run in conjunction with Cheshire East, Warrington and Halton. For maximum savings benefit they need to go across the area and this decision needs to be taken within the new Local Economic Partnership a matter for Cllr Jones to negotiate.
Also the partnership provides a range of road safety training programmes for schoolchildren and offending adults and these must not be lost in any reform of the partnership as the principle cause of road accidents is driver error or inattention. The staff released from looking after the cameras are mainly police force employees and their redeployment could aid the police in providing speed enforcement activity in the 30 MPH area which is usually welcomed by the locals.
QUESTION 20 FROM COUNCILLOR RICHARD LOWE TO COUNCILLOR LES FORD, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR FINANCE
As part of the Budget Consultation programme, could Cheshire West and Chester at the very least look at using a ‘Budget Simulator’ (found at www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=22436695 ) so that residents are able to see the real financial costs and effects of any changes they may wish to see?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 20 FROM COUNCILLOR LES FORD
The Council is committed to carrying out a comprehensive process of consultation to inform the 2011/12 budget. This will include the launch of an online budget simulator in early November - known as "You Choose" - which will allow members of the public and key stakeholders to make choices about levels of expenditure within a context of reduced funding. This free tool is available from the Local Government Association and will be widely advertised through the local press and social media. Staff in Libraries will also support residents to utilise this tool on public computers. The system will allow all Members to view the results of this budget simulation on a 'real time' basis. In addition, in November the Council will also hold three events, including around 300 residents, to consult further on capital proposals and to encourage dialogue on the revenue budget. In December, the Authority is also planning on releasing its key budget proposals and will to invite local residents to provide the Council with their feedback. In January, representatives of the Authority will have detailed discussions on the proposal s with key stakeholders such as the business community, trade unions, minority groups, the schools forum, the third sector assembly and other groups. The results of the consultation will be Page 433 shared with Members of the Executive before the budget has been recommended to Council. Following this, a detailed analysis of the consultation and the Authority's response to the feedback it has received will be prepared and made publicly available.
QUESTION 21 FROM COUNCILLOR JILL HOULBROOK TO COUNCILLOR HERBERT MANLEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR PROSPERITY
Does the Executive member join me in welcoming the plans recently outlined by the Housing Minister? These plans will devolve greater powers to councils to meet the actual housing needs of our local communities. May I ask the Executive member to explain how changing the Housing Revenue Account system will benefit our communities and help those in housing need in our authority?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 21 FROM COUNCILLOR HERBERT MANLEY
The announcement by the Housing Minister referred to in the Member’s question is the New Homes Bonus.
The New Homes Bonus is welcomed and it is anticipated that it will assist in achieving the growth ambitions of Cheshire West and Chester and those of the wider sub-region.
The growth ambitions of the Cheshire and Warrington Sub-region are clearly set out in the draft Sub-Regional Strategy ‘Unleashing the Potential’ and the Local Enterprise Partnership proposal ‘Cheshire and Warrington Means Business’. The full benefits of economic growth will not be realised without the associated housing growth.
The New Homes Bonus was announced by Grant Shapps in August and will provide Councils with 6 years Council Tax payments for every new home completed with an additional bonus for affordable housing completions.
Further details are expected following the CSR, however preliminary calculations within Cheshire West and Chester indicate that the Bonus could deliver more than £60m additional resources to the Borough, over a 10 year period if we can deliver 10,000 new homes.
This creates an opportunity to pump-prime sites and stimulate developers and RSLs to deliver new homes. We welcome this initiative and believe it can help achieve real improvements in housing choice, supply and quality for local residents.
QUESTION 22 FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW DAWSON TO COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
On Monday afternoon I came across a man bleeding from a head wound lying on the ground on our car park at the Civic Centre in Ellesmere Port. Without going into too much detail it transpired that the man was one of our 'homeless' and had probably had a fit whilst waiting for one of our officers. I dialled 999 and requested an ambulance for the man at 16:07. Whilst keeping him under observation I met one of our homelessness outreach team who was clearly intending to meet him. I explained that I had called an ambulance, that the man clearly had a head wound, was incoherent and was evidently still bleeding.
Page 434 Bearing in mind the proximity of the Ellesmere Port Ambulance Station to the Civic Centre car park both the officer and I were somewhat horrified that by 16:29 no ambulance had arrived. The officer offered to take the man in her car to the Countess of Chester Hospital. I called North West Ambulance and cancelled the ambulance.
I am grateful that the officer reported back to me on Monday night that 'they are keeping him in hospital overnight and putting 5 stitches in his head. I'm just heading home now to clean up the mess.'
I checked with the officer whether this Council routinely issues our outreach workers with first aid kits. She replied 'no.'
I am concerned by this, and I presume the absence of personal protective equipment so as to ensure that she and her colleagues can remain safe from any risks associated with 'body fluids.'
Could the Leader please pass on my personal thanks and commendation to our homelessness team for the excellent work they do and the compassion they show and could he also reassure me that we have up to date, effective and crucially suitable and sufficient risk assessments in place properly identifying the very evident risks this incident demonstrates (including lone worker issues) and that consideration will be given to issuing personal protective equipment and first aid kits to our outreach workers.
ANSWER TO QUESTION 22 FROM COUNCILLOR LYNN RILEY
I wholeheartedly endorse Cllr Dawson's commendation of our Housing Solutions Service and in particular the help and compassion shown by Julia Davies, a valued member of our team, in this particular case. I share Cllr Dawson's concern that our staff are properly equipped to deal with situations such as this and I have asked that this matter be raised and addressed by officers in our corporate Health and Safety Service.
QUESTION 23 FROM COUNCILLOR REGGIE JONES TO COUNCILLOR HERBERT MANLEY, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR PROSPERITY
In welcoming the news that Chester is to develop a new business quarter located East & South of the Railway Station, to be called the Chester Central Business Quarter, it is noted that the Portfolio Holder has declared there is no direct impact on equality & diversity issues? Given that the majority of employment will be high-value knowledge based office employment and his stated need for inclusion & participation in the labour market from local communities, particularly where exclusion from the labour market is acute;
1. Will he agree with me that of the planned 1100 additional jobs created by the new business quarter and the need to tackle barriers to employment, it will be important to measure success or failure of his plans? 2. Can he assure Blacon residents that he will ensure positive discrimination policies are in place and that employment targets are set for employment in the new quarter by Blacon residents?
Page 435 ANSWER TO QUESTION 23 FROM COUNCILLOR MIKE JONES
To create a successful and vibrant economy it is important that the Council supports the creation of a range of job opportunities in the borough, including both highly skilled jobs, and employment for those who are currently encounter barriers to work have more with limited skills, experience or qualifications, wherever they may reside.
The Proposed Chester Central Business District provides a fantastic opportunity to meet these diverse needs, both within the development itself and as a result of the economic prosperity that it will bring to areas in the wider Chester area and beyond.
The Council's Employment Skills and Learning (ESL) department routinely engages at the planning stage to secure agreements which ensure that opportunities for residents are maximised, particularly those that may need additional assistance to access employment. This includes residents from our target neighbourhoods, including Blacon, and residents from target groups,( including lone parents, long-term unemployed, un /under-employed graduates, adults with learning /other disabilities, care leavers and others)
These groups are assisted to access vacancies either during the building / development phase, or after completion.
This approach has been applied recently to the Marks and Spencer’s development in Ellesmere Port and is a key component of the latest proposals for the Zoo. The team will monitor the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that maximum benefits are secured. Feed back will then be used to inform continually improved outcomes for all our residents .
We have been working very closely with West Cheshire College and their outreach work in Blacon, Lache and areas of disadvantage in Ellesmere Port, to help individuals be work ready when opportunities are available.
QUESTION 24 FROM COUNCILLOR REGGIE JONES TO COUNCILLOR MIKE JONES, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
At the Full Council held on 22 nd July 2010, Blacon Councillors presented a petition to the Chairman of the Council, on behalf of Blacon residents who were unhappy at the imposition of charges for Bulky Waste without consultation. Additionally, I was asked to forward an e-mail to you from Blacon resident Mr Gus Cairns, who is the Chair of the Australian Roads Residents Association, outlining the concerns expressed by members of his association of increased flytipping and the additional costs being borne by tenants of Chester & District Housing Trust. Since that Council meeting I have received a letter from the Director of Community & Environment explaining that there is no intention to review this policy by the Council. However, Mr Cairns has expressed his disappointment to me that he has not received a reply from you, and is unable to communicate your views to his association members.
1. Will the leader please confirm that he will respond to the communication sent by Mr Cairns and printed below as soon as possible?
Page 436 From: JONES, Reggie (Councillor) Sent: 20 August 2010 11:39 To: JONES, Mike (Leader of the Council) Cc: Subject: FW: australian roads residents association skip day
Dear Mike,
Can you take the time to read the e-mail sent to me this morning. Myself and Alex Tate on behalf of all Blacon Councillors presented a petition to the Chairman at the last Council meeting. We have been listening to our residents who have expressed grave concerns about the Councils policy and the impact introducing charges without consultation would have on flytipping and the Housing Trust in particular who are having to pick up the additional costs? Ultimately tenants will be paying the bill through their rents.
I would welcome your views as soon as possible please. Many thanks for your help.
Reggie
From: gordon cairns Sent: 20 August 2010 10:39 To: JONES, Reggie (Councillor) Cc: Subject: australian roads residents association skip day
Sent: 20 August 2010 10:39 Subject: australian roads residents association skip day
Australian roads residents association and Chester and District Housing Trust had a very successful skip day on thursday 19th august at the car park in Wyndham Road. 4 Housing trust employees and 3 residents assoc members including the chair took part and two huge skips were filled between 9-00am and 1-00pm. Thanks have to go to Blacon pride panel of CDHT for paying for the skips from there community intervention budget. Cdht for supplying 2 housing officers and 2 of there caretaking staff and a van and a special thanks to the Australian roads assoc members who turned up on the day to volunteer .
Now to the serious part if we can fill two huge skips in 4 hours at a cost of £500+ from such a small area it shows that now people are hoarding there bulk rubbish not willing to pay the extortionate £15 per item the council charges. How long will people store bulk items before they dump them in the nearest alley or bit of waste land. It is costing CDHT £10000 a month to remove and legally tip bulk items left on their grounds since the council stopped there free service. This is money that could be used to build affordable housing to house some of the 4000 on the waiting list in the Chester area or put 4 new kitchens in just going to waste (pun definitely intended). This CWAC policy is hitting private firms and social enterprises to a high degree as they have to pay for their fly tipped on land to be cleared. Why not say £15 per collection and take all items on one collection like it used to be. What happened to the Council serving the public now it is the public doing the councils work for them and paying several times over for doing it. Community Intervention Budgets are for enhancing the community like benches flower pots football team kits not skips to clean up the councils mess for them. I am disgusted that private citizens should have to pay this huge amount of money to do the Page 437 councils work for them as well as council tax which is being frittered away on expensive consultants to do the officers work for them.
Gus Cairns Chairman Australian Roads Residents Association
ANSWER TO QUESTION 24 FROM COUNCILLOR MIKE JONES
I remember writing a reply to this e-mail and I am not sure what has happened to the reply. Unfortunately my secretary is away on holiday and just left prior to receiving the question. On her return I will look in to the matter and ensure a reply is dispatched accordingly. In a professional organisation, an oversight such as this would normally be solved by a short reminder note and it is sad that Cllr Jones chooses to waste valuable time at full Council for such a trivial issue, an approach that only serves to bring the Council and the opportunity to ask questions in disrepute
Page 438 STANDARDS COMMITTEE 14 OCTOBER 2010 (4.00 pm - 6.00 pm)
PRESENT: Maurice McBride (Chairman)
Councillors Pam Booher, Razia Daniels, Kay Loch, Pat Lott and Helen Weltman
Independent Members: Rod Bowman and Alan Latham
Parish/Town Council Geoffrey Hope-Terry, Ted Lush and Roger Parkin representatives:
Apologies for absence were received from Independent Member Don McFarlane
Visiting Members: Councillors Derek Bateman and Mike Jones
Officers in attendance: Steve Robinson − Chief Executive Simon Goacher − Head of Legal and Democratic Services Mandy Ramsden − Senior Manager - Democratic Services Catherine Gaukroger − Lawyer (Corporate)
30 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Item(s) Reason Action Pam Booher Item 8 - Parish Personal Interest as a Remained in the Council issues member of Winsford meeting Town Council Geoffrey Item 8 - Parish Personal Interest as a Remained in the Hope-Terry Council issues member of Utkinton meeting Parish Council Pat Lott Item 8 - Parish Personal Interest as a Remained in the Council issues member of Upton meeting Parish Council and member of ChALC Ted Lush Item 8 - Parish Personal Interest as a Remained in the Council issues member of Tarvin meeting Parish Council Roger Parkin Item 8 - Parish Personal Interest as a Remained in the Council issues member of Mickle meeting Trafford Parish Council and executive member of ChALC.
31 MINUTES The Chairman advised that all the matters recommended through to Council at the last meeting had been approved.
Page 439
DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of Standards Committee dated 1 July 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
32 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION There were no members of the public present, and no questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting.
33 DISCUSSION WITH GROUP LEADERS The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Jones and the Labour Group Leader, Councillor Derek Bateman together with the Chief Executive, Steve Robinson, were in attendance, having been invited by the Committee to discuss the proposed abolition of the standards regime nationally and the implications locally for dealing with complaints.
The Liberal Democrat Group Leader Councillor Malcolm Gaskill had not been able to attend the meeting and had submitted his apologies.
Councillors Jones and Bateman both felt that there would be a role for the Standards Committee to play in the future and would support a local facility to take responsibility for local issues. It was acknowledged that the party groups needed to do what they could to instil acceptable standards of behaviour. The Group Leaders both emphasised that the Standards Committee and its role in regulating Councillors’ behaviour was respected by their group members.
In response to questions about the remit of the Committee it was felt that current activities were in line with those responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. The Committee was seen as acting independently and the Group Leaders welcomed any pro-active work the Committee felt necessary to engage members.
Councillor Jones also acknowledged that in the event of Parish Councils taking on enhanced responsibilities, additional training might be required and it would be important that good relationships were encouraged between Authorities. He suggested that since many Council meetings were now webcast it would be possible to use these to help define good/ poor behaviour and to provide guidance on the conduct of meetings.
DECIDED: That
(1) the comments of the Leader of the Council and the Labour Group Leader be noted; and
(2) Councillors Mike Jones, Derek Bateman and the Chief Executive be thanked for attending the meeting and for the positive comments made and support given.
Page 440 34 FEEDBACK FROM MEETINGS WITH LEADER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE The Chair and Deputy Chair had met with the Council Leader and Chief Executive on 14 September 2010. All the matters discussed were the subject of separate items on the agenda.
35 BOROUGH COUNCILLOR TRAINING - ATTENDANCE AND FEEDBACK Details of Councillors’ attendances at various training sessions relating to Standards and Code of Conduct held between April 2009 and February 2010 were circulated at the meeting. The figures indicated that 50 out of 72 members had attended some form of formal training event.
The Monitoring Officer explained that the figures did not include any attendances at the Shadow Council induction events which had also covered Standards issues. It was also pointed out that many Members had undertaken relevant training with predecessor authorities. Whilst 100% attendance was the ideal target it was acknowledged that training had to compete with many other calls on Members’ time. Proposals for future training sessions had been put on hold pending possible changes to the standards regime but would be included in the New Members’ Induction Training Programme after the 2011 elections.
Committee members felt that alternative methods of delivering training should be considered and that training should be targeted to address known problem areas where complaints had been received. Suggestions included • pre-committee sessions highlighting relevance to the particular committee • use of case studies • including training as part of the meeting to raise awareness outside the authority and ensure attendance.
Committee members were advised that there was an e-learning module available on the Overview of the Code of Conduct to which all Members had access and the Monitoring Officer agreed to find out what the take up had been on this module.
DECIDED: That
the training attendance and feedback information be noted and alternative delivery options be investigated for future training sessions.
36 PARISH COUNCIL ISSUES - COMPACT, TRAINING, RECRUITMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES The Monitoring Officer updated Members on Parish Council issues.
Parish Compact
Two meetings had been held with Jackie Weaver, Chief Officer of the Cheshire Association of Local Councils (ChALC), and a draft Compact had been produced which required endorsement by ChALC and the Standards Committee. The draft Compact had been circulated prior to the meeting. The Compact was similar to that presented to the Shadow Authority but clarified the Council’s position in relation to the commitment to resources.
Committee Members made the following suggestions:-
Page 441 • paragraph 7 be amended with the addition of the words “and approved by Full Council”. • paragraph 4 include reference to the annual bulletin being included on Parish Council agendas • paragraph 10 include reference to the Monitoring Officer being given access to training records on request
DECIDED: That
the Parish Compact be approved subject to agreement to any amendments suggested above as may be agreed between the Monitoring Officer, the Chairman of the Standards Committee and ChALC.
Parish Councillor and clerk training.
Following discussions with Jackie Weaver it had been envisaged that three sessions would be held between November 2010 and January 2011. In view of the uncertainty regarding the future of the regime, this training was now inappropriate. Depending on any new arrangements that might be brought in the Monitoring Officer and ChALC would work together to provide future training on governance and assist in building capacity under the localism agenda.
The Chairman expressed his disappointment about the delay in the provision of training although it was acknowledged that some Parishes had arranged for their own training.
DECIDED: That
the proposals be noted.
Recruitment of representatives on the Standards Committee.
Jackie Weaver had been sent details of the process that had been adopted in the past. It was agreed that ChALC needed to have enough time to make the appropriate arrangements.
DECIDED: That
the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Standards Committee and Parish Council representatives be given delegated authority powers to agree the way forward on the recruitment process.
37 CRIMINAL RECORD BUREAU (CRB ) CHECKING OF MEMBERS The Committee considered the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services which asked the Committee to consider whether to recommend to Audit and Governance Committee and subsequently Council, that enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks (CRB) be undertaken for all elected Cheshire West and Chester Councillors and where necessary co-opted and appointed members on the Council’s Committees. The report included proposals on the timing and frequency of such checks and suggested appropriate action to be taken if a check revealed a contra-indicator.
Page 442 A number of issues were raised and discussed by members including:- • The appropriate level of checks and whether they needed to be at an enhanced level • The relevance to all Council Members and whether only needed for particular roles • The non-transferability of CRB checks and duplication • The cost of standard CRB checks • Possible contravention of the Human Rights Act • ‘contra indicators’ would only be revealed at the time the check was carried out, subsequent criminal records would not be disclosed until another CRB check was conducted.
The Monitoring Officer advised that the Council would not be in contravention of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (right to privacy) as this right could be interfered with providing the interference was authorised by law, was necessary and either ensured public safety, prevented crime or disorder or protected health and morals. He confirmed that the proposals were lawful and proportionate.
Members felt that they needed more time to consider the proposals and asked that the report be brought back to the next meeting for further consideration and that it include more details about why enhanced checks were being proposed rather than standard checks.
Members were advised that, in light of the forthcoming elections it would be sensible to advise the Election Agents that CRB checks for all Members was being actively considered.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be brought back to the next meeting for further consideration; and
(2) the Monitoring Officer notify Election Agents that requirements for all future Councillors to undertake a CRB check is under active consideration.
38 RECRUITMENT OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS Members considered the report of the Monitoring Officer concerning the procedure and timescale for recruiting Independent members to the Standards Committee in advance of the May 2011 Council elections.
In relation to the establishment of a short listing and interview panel it was agreed that a panel of 5 would allow for Councillor representation from the main political Groups although it was acknowledged that the appointments were non-political.
It was confirmed that recruitment and selection training would be provided for members of the panel. Members also requested that the timetable be looked at again to see if it could be brought forward.
DECIDED: That
(1) the timetable for independent member selection at Appendix 2 to the report be agreed and a progress report be brought back to the next meeting; and
Page 443 (2) a short listing and interview panel be appointed to comprise:-
the Chairman Maurice McBride, Alan Latham, Ted Lush and Councillors Kay Loch and Pam Booher.
39 COMMUNICATIONS The Monitoring Officer advised that the first edition of the Standards Committee newsletter had been distributed to all Members of the Council and to Parish Councils and Parish Meetings in the area. It was planned to issue a newsletter after each meeting. In view of the uncertainty about the future of the Standards regime limited resources would be used for publicity until the future was more certain. Basic information was available on the web site.
Members suggested that the web site be updated with the supportive comments expressed by the Leader of the Council and Labour Group Leader.
Members also reconfirmed that venues for meetings should rotate around the area and it was confirmed that the Parish Clerks were sent notification when agendas were published.
DECICIDED: That
the update on communications be noted.
40 STANDARDS FOR ENGLAND BULLETIN NUMBER 48 The Monitoring Officer briefed Members on Standards for England Bulletin number 48. The Bulletin was mainly focussed on the proposed abolition of Standards for England and the Standards Framework, including the timescale and the continuance of service up to the abolition.
Members also considered a statement from MP Andrew Stunnell which strongly indicated that cases could be considered via a court or Local Government Ombudsman rather than via Standards Board.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that any changes would require primary legislation and that until further notice it would be ‘business as normal’.
DECIDED That:
(1) the Standards for England Bulletin be noted; and
(2) proposals for the replacement of the standards regime be a standing item on future agendas.
41 WORK PROGRAMME The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer detailing the latest version of the Work Programme for the 2010/2011 Municipal Year.
The Monitoring Officer suggested that the Committee could review the current Member/Officer Protocol and also proposed that in 2011/12 the Committee look at risk areas and matters where there had been particular issues or problems.
Page 444
Members suggested that communications (newsletter) and Website be combined as one item for the next meeting.
DECIDED: That
the Work Programme be noted and the suggestions outlined above be incorporated.
42 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING. There was no item of urgent business but the Chairman asked that thanks be recorded for the hard work and effort put in by the Committee administrator Mike Jones during the summer months in arranging sub-committee meetings.
43 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That
the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items on the agenda, pursuant to Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
44 COMPLAINTS UNDER LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK The Committee considered details of standards complaints cases received from 1 April 2010.
DECIDED: That
the complaints and progress be noted.
Chairman
Date
Page 445 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 446 STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE 21 OCTOBER 2010 (4.00 pm - 4.40 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Myles Hogg (Chairman)
Councillors Malcolm Byram (Deputy Chairman), Brian Clarke, Angela Claydon, Hilarie McNae, Graham Smith, Andrew Storrar, Bob Thompson, Adrian Walmsley and Mark Williams
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hugo Deynem, Malcolm Gaskill, John Grimshaw, George Miller, Stuart Parker and Mark Stocks
Reserve Members: Councillors Graham Smith (in place of Councillor Stuart Parker), Andrew Storrar (in place of Councillor Mark Stocks), Bob Thompson (in place of Councillor Malcolm Gaskill), Adrian Walmsley (in place of Councillor George Miller) and Mark Williams (in place of Councillor John Grimshaw)
Visiting Members: Councillors Don Beckett, Andrew Needham and Barbara Roberts
Officers in Jon Sutcliffe − Area Planning Manager attendance: Clare Appleyard − Senior Planning Officer Ken Jones − Principal Development Control Officer (H/ways) Daniel Dickinson − Senior Solicitor Sue Wakeford − Democratic Services Officer
30 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Agenda Item 4.
10/01488/FUL - Variation of conditions on planning permission APP/Z0645/A/07/205909 - Proposed development of Resource Recovery Park at Ince Resource Recovery Park, Lordship Lane, Frodsham, Cheshire
Councillor Malcolm Byram made the following point of clarification:
“Some considerable time ago, I think in 2008, when the application was before the then County Council, I did speak as a County Member against the Ince Park Waste Recovery Park Application.
That application was of course eventually granted by the Secretary of State on appeal.
Since then, this council has determined applications and given consultation responses on several significant waste processing schemes and I have taken considerable care to ensure that I was not debarred from participating in those determinations or decisions by reason of any accusation of pre-determination of their merits or de-merits.
The application before us is for a variation to the outline permission granted by the Secretary of State.
Page 447
I am content that with the benefit of evaluating and determining other significant schemes and applications, and with the passage of time and as a member of the new council and in an overall context of changing planning policy, I am able to approach and indeed have approached the evaluation of this application with an open mind and without any pre-determined view as to whether it should be granted or refused. I confirm that I will therefore judge it to the best of my ability on its planning merits and with the benefit of the advice of the officers and my observations at the site visit this afternoon.”
31 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 16 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
For clarification, it was noted that Councillor Hilaire McNae had stated at the outset of her contribution to the debate on the zoo extension application at the above meeting that; she lived in Upton, was not a member of the zoo and the proposals would have no particular adverse effect upon her house. Thus she was clarifying that she considered that notwithstanding the scale and impact of the development she had no personal or prejudicial interest in the application.
PLANNING APPLICATION The Strategic Planning Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Transport that made recommendation for approval of the planning application, together with the late information report and the additional late information report, both of which were circulated at the meeting as the information contained therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.
32 10/01488/FUL - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS ON PLANNING PERMISSION APP/Z0645/A/07/205909 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK AT INCE RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK, LORDSHIP LANE, FRODSHAM, CHESHIRE Agenda item 4. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Stephen Bell who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant’s agent.
The Planning Officer drew attention to the additional late information report which advised Members that the proposals would require a minor change to the bridleway route which, if approval was given, a revised stopping up order would be required that would need to be advertised. The report gave a revised recommendation based on this information.
Following a request from the Chairman, the planning officer also clarified the two different consents (Deemed and outline) that currently existed and this Section 73 application appertaining to the proposals. The Area Planning Manager confirmed that, should the application be approved, two consents would be in place, the original outline consent and one for the application being considered. It was
Page 448 confirmed that if the application was refused the original outline consent would stand.
The locations on site of the variations were fully described to Members. The Planning Officer advised that the applicant attended the Ince Marshes Liaison Group which met monthly and confirmed that no objections or comments had been received regarding this application.
Members raised queries regarding:
• the reasons for the change in location of the road and railway line – to accommodate the length of train. • the alterations to the conditions to allow the development of the railway on a phased basis – to allow more flexibility whilst still ensuring the delivery of a scheme incorporating multi modal transport links. • that the variations, if agreed, could still change - but any changes would have to come back to the Strategic Planning Committee for consideration. It was noted that reserved matters had still to be granted. • that datum levels would be taken and agreed before work commenced – the Area Planning Manager confirmed that a plan of existing levels may already be in existence. However if one was not available then a datum level plan would be required.
A proposal to approve the application was carried by 9 votes for with 1 against.
DECIDED: That
this application be approved subject to:
(1) it being advertised as ’affecting a Public Right of Way’ all in accordance with the Town and Country (General Procedure) Order 1995 and subject to the consideration of any further comments received during the consultation period following the aforementioned advertisement, the Head of Planning and Transport be authorised to grant planning permission.
(2) the prior completion of a supplementary planning obligation under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to tie together the legal agreements associated with the deemed consent and the outline consent, whilst also providing that the outline consent cannot be implemented if the Section 73 application is implemented.
(3) the conditions, and variations to conditions, listed in the report and the late information report with the addition of a condition requiring site levels if they are not already held.
33 APPEALS REPORT DECIDED: That
(1) 09/10510/EOPDEV – the address of the case be changed to ‘land adjacent to the hotel’ to reflect the location of the land more accurately
Page 449 (2) 10/10023/REF & 10/10907/ADV - to note that the banner has been removed.
(3) the information contained within the appeals report be accepted.
34 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 450 EVERY CHILD MATTERS SELECT PANEL 25 OCTOBER 2010 (2.30 pm - 4.30 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Eleanor Johnson (Chairman)
Councillors George Miller (Deputy Chairman), Simon McDonald, Charlie Parkinson and Alex Tate
Co-optee: Mr John McCann
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Richard Lowe, and Hilarie McNae, and Co-optees John Bowden and Christopher Rawlinson
Officers in attendance: John Stephens − Director of Children and Young People Paul Boyce − Head of Service, Safeguarding (Children and Young People's Services) Alison Peddie − Virtual Head for Children in our Care Team Andrea Thwaite − Scrutiny Team
22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest.
23 DECLARATION OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
24 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of the meeting of the Every Child Matters Select Panel held on 12 July 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
25 PUBLIC QUESTIONS/OPEN SESSION There were no questions from the public.
26 OUR CHILDREN MATTER - 39 STEPS John Stephens, Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services, provided the Panel with an update on progress made with the implementation of the 39 Steps scrutiny report. The Panel learnt how the Council’s Safeguarding Team had implemented some of the recommendations contained within the report. Following concerns raised, the Panel learnt that the Council would shortly be sending to all its children in their care, a personalised birthday card from Steve Robinson, Chief Executive
Page 451 AGREED: That
the Safeguarding Team update the Panel at its meeting in March 2011 on how each of the 39 recommendations have been implemented.
27 ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2009/10 FROM THE ACHIEVEMENT AND WELLBEING SERVICE ON STANDARDS OF ATTAINMENT IN CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER John Stephens, Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services, presented, on behalf of Ann Moore, Head of Achievement and Wellbeing, the Annual Report for 2009/10 Achievement and Wellbeing Service on Standards of attainment in Cheshire West and Chester. He informed the Panel that the attainment results for Key Stages 2 and 4 were only provisional at this time.
The Panel learnt that the 2009/10 attainment results for Key Stage 2 had improved and that the greatest improvements had been in areas of the Borough where they were needed the most. John Stephens also informed the Panel that regrettably attainment in the Early Years lagged behind attainment at all other stages. Werin, Blacon and Leftwich Secondary Schools had made good progress in 2009/10, although there was still room for further improvements. The Council had provided additional support to certain schools prior to the exams. The support had been well received and had helped improve schools’ results.
Following discussions regarding outcomes for the Council’s looked after children, John Stephens confirmed that the teams were working hard to break down barriers that these young people had to face. Alison Peddie, Virtual Head for Children in our Care Team, confirmed that 52% of this cohort had special educational needs. Despite this, there were some good individual results.
AGREED: That
Ann Moore be thanked for her informative report.
28 OUT OF AUTHORITY PLACEMENTS FOR CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL Paul Boyce, Head of Safeguarding, presented a report that set out the reasons why currently 90 children in the care of Cheshire West and Chester Council lived in placements that were not directly provided by the Council. These out of borough placements had a huge impact on this Council’s care costs.
The Panel learnt that since April 2009, the Council had seen an increase in the number of children in its care. The increase was higher than the national average and the Panel learnt that the Safeguarding Team was still investigating reasons behind the increase. Paul Boyce explained that, as well as the Baby P case the ‘Staying Put’ and ‘Right to be Cared For’ policies could also have had an impact on the increase.
In April 2009, the baseline budgets for safeguarding were insufficient and the Council inherited from the previous County Council a £1.2m overspend. Currently the budget was 100% overspent and out of borough placements contributed greatly to this. The Safeguarding Team was working hard to reduce the overspend
Page 452 and by April 2014 it was expected to be back in line with the position as inherited in April 2009.
Paul Boyce informed the Panel that there were good reasons for placing children and young people outside the Cheshire West and Chester area. The Panel understood the reasoning but were still concerned that valuable resources were being spent outside the borough. Concern was expressed by Members over the number of adolescents that came into care. Family break downs were a factor in young people coming into care. The Panel was informed that the Council had an unpublicised charging policy. Parents could be charged a contribution towards the Council caring for their children.
Paul Boyce confirmed that the Safeguarding Team was working to increase the number foster carers.
AGREED: That
the Council publicise the charging policy for parents whose children were in care.
29 OFSTED FOSTERING INSPECTION UPDATE John Stephens, Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services, presented a report updating the Panel on the Ofsted Fostering Inspection. The Fostering Service was inspected by Ofsted in October 2009 and received an overall judgement of `good`. The Council submitted to Ofsted an Action Plan that addressed the issues raised and in the last 12 months the Fostering Teams had implemented the Action Plan. An Independent Self Assessment Inspection was conducted by Internal Audit in June 2009.
AGREED: That
the Panel receive a further update on the implementation of the Action Plan at its special meeting scheduled for 13 December 2010.
30 UPDATE ON THE SCRUTINY REVIEW OF EDUCATION AND EMPLOYABILITY FOR LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN The Chairman, Councillor Eleanor Johnson, presented to the Panel the findings from the scrutiny event held in the summer at the Conway Centre. A group of young people in care attended a three day residential scrutiny event to explore what barriers they had to face in their education and future employability. The Council’s Research and Intelligence Team had included the findings from the event in a report which was presented to the Panel.
Councillor Johnson informed the Panel that a follow up event with the young people was being held on Saturday 6 November. A final report would be produced from the two events and presented to the Panel at their meeting scheduled for 13 December 2010. At that meeting, the Panel would present its findings and recommendations to Councillor Arthur Harada, Education and Children Portfolio Holder.
Page 453 AGREED: That
(1) the Panel receive the final report including recommendations to its meeting on 13 December 2010.
(2) the Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services be requested to book the Conway Centre for a seminar for young people in care in August 2011.
31 WORK PROGRAMME 2010/11
AGREED: That
the Panel note the updated work programme.
32 ANY OTHER PUBLIC BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT - INSPECTION
An inspection would be conducted under arrangements made by H M Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills in accordance with the requirements of the Children Act 2004. It would focus on evaluating outcomes for children and young people and the impact of practice and services on improving outcomes.
John Stephens, Director of Children’s and Young People’s Service’s, informed the Panel of the recent inspections by Ofsted of the Council’s A doption and Fostering Service and of the unannounced Inspection of Contact Referral and Assessment Services.
AGREED: That
(1) the Panel note the notification of the recent inspections and the pending inspections.
(2) the Panel receive a further update on all recent inspections on Children and Young People’s Directorate to its next scheduled meeting on 13 December 2010.
NOTE: The Chairman considered this an urgent item as the information was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda and the item needed to be considered before the next meeting of the Panel.
33 DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS AGREED: That
(1) the Panel note that date of the special meeting to be held on Monday 13 December at 2pm.
(2) the Panel note the date of the next scheduled meeting which would be held on Monday 24 th January 2011 at 2.30pm.
Page 454 34 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC AGREED: That
the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items on the agenda, pursuant to Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
35 ANY OTHER EXEMPT BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT - CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL CARE PROVISION The Panel considered a report from Paul Boyce, Head of Safeguarding, regarding the Council’s provision for children’s residential care.
AGREED: That
Paul Boyce presents a further update to a future meeting of this Panel.
NOTE: The Chairman considered this an urgent item as the information was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda and the item needed to be considered before the next meeting
Chairman
Date
Page 455 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 456 APPEALS COMMITTEE 29 OCTOBER 2010 (10.00 am - 12.00 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Kathy Lord (Chairman)
Councillors Brian Bailey and Kate Birtwistle
Officers in attendance: Jackie Speakman − Principal Transport Officer John Mason − Admissions and Appeals Officer John Ricketts − Road Safety Team Leader - ETP Sarah Collins − Senior Road Safety Officer Richard Harrod − Solicitor - legal and Democratic Services Mike A Jones − Democratic Services Officer
31 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS There were no declarations of interests made.
32 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION No members of the public were present, and no questions had been submitted in advance.
33 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the Minutes of the meeting of the Appeals Committee held on 16 July 2010 and 17 September 2010 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
34 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING There was no business under this Item.
35 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That
Under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the remaining items on the agenda on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served should the information be published.
36 SCHOOL TRANSPORT APPEALS The Committee considered three appeals against the decision of the Head of Highways and Transportation, in accordance with the Council’s Policies, not to allow assisted school transport.
The appellants attended for appeals one and two. The Principal Transport Officer attended to present all cases and to ask and answer questions. The Road Safety
Page 457 Team Leader and the Senior Road Safety officer attended for case 1 and the Admissions and Appeals Officer attended for case 2.
Members considered the evidence presented to them both orally and in writing.
DECIDED: That
(1) In respect of case 1, the appeal be upheld;
(2) In respect of case 2, the appeal be upheld; and
(3) In respect of case 3, the appeal be upheld and support granted until the end of the Autumn term 2010.
Chairman
Date
Page 458 HEALTH AND WELLBEING SELECT PANEL 1 NOVEMBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 8.45 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Graham Smith (Chairman)
Councillors Don Beckett (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Paul Donovan), Razia Daniels, Kathy Lord, Pat Lott and Keith Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Terry Birtwistle and Paul Donovan
Reserve Member: Councillors Don Beckett (in place of Councillor Paul Donovan)
Visiting Member: Councillors Brenda Dowding
Officers in attendance: Mark Palethorpe − Director of Adult Social Care and Health Sarah Byrom − Director of Performance and Patient Experience, NW Ambulance Service Toby Edwards − Cheshire East Community Health Fiona Field − Executive Director of Governance and Strategic Planning, C and E Cheshire PCT Jim Hughes − Director of Strategy and Performance Improvement, NHS Western Cheshire PCT David Jones − Scrutiny Team David Kitchin − Head of Service for Cheshire and Merseyside, NW Ambulance Service Marilyn Knass − Medicines Management Project Facilitator, Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT
29 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Name Item Interest Action Councillor Item 14 Personal Interest Took part in the Don Cheshire and by virtue of being a consideration of the Beckett, Pat Wirral member of the item. Lott, Councils Joint Cheshire and Wirral Graham Scrutiny Partnership Joint Smith. Committee Management Minutes. Committee.
Page 459 Councillor Item 11 Local Personal Interest Took part in the Pat Lott. Involvement by virtue of being a consideration of the Network. member of LINk. item.
30 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
31 QUESTION TIME/ OPEN SESSION There were no questions from members of the public.
32 MINUTES AGREED: That:
the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
33 PHARMACEUTICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENTS The Panel considered reports from Fiona Field (Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust) and Jim Hughes (NHS Western Cheshire Primary Care Trust) on the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment which was a comprehensive assessment of pharmaceutical services being provided for the population within the Primary Care Trust (PCT) areas, including locally commissioned enhanced services. It took into account the geographical location of services and public health information which identified health need.
Members agreed that the recommendation of the Recreation, Leisure and Cultural Facilities Task Group regarding local pharmacies being used to promote within their areas facilities and schemes beneficial to the physical and mental wellbeing of residents, especially older people, should be submitted to the PCTs for inclusion within the assessments.
AGREED: That
(1) the PCTs be requested to include within the assessments that pharmacies are encouraged to promote those facilities and schemes of benefit to the physical and mental wellbeing of residents, especially older people, within their localities.
(2) the PCTs be requested to ensure that the opening times of pharmacies are publicised as widely as possible.
34 NORTH WEST AMBULANCE SERVICE The Panel considered a presentation by Sarah Byrom, Director of Performance and Patient Experience and Dave Kitchin, Head of Service for Cheshire & Merseyside, North West Ambulance Service. The presentation included the following:
Page 460 the North West Ambulance Service performance for Category A calls in Cheshire had generally improved year on year. There had been a 5% increase in the number of emergency calls during 2010, peaking in September 2010. The rurality of much of Cheshire had provided a number of challenges.
95.5% of 999 calls were answered within 2 rings.
the service operated the NHS Pathway triage system to ensure calls were dealt with appropriately.
technological innovations including ambulances being on the Airwave radio system, the installation of vehicle tracking devices and demand and capacity management systems.
the introduction of the new 111 phone number currently being piloted and due for roll out in 2011 to replace out of hours numbers and NHS Direct.
vehicle turnaround at hospitals.
monitoring of the patient experience.
the North West Ambulance Trust applying for foundation status in 2011.
AGREED: That
the contents of the presentation from the North West Ambulance Service be noted and the Panel be kept informed of any performance issues and progress with regard to the application for Foundation Trust status.
35 UPDATE FROM THE PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS The Panel considered reports from both the NHS Western Cheshire and the Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trusts (PCT)s.
NHS Western Cheshire PCT
The report from the PCT included the following:
the Primary Care Trust’s Annual Report for 2009/10; the Interim Director of Public Health’s Annual Report; an update on the Trust’s Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention arrangements; possible changes to the podiatry service; information on additional consultation documents in support of the NHS White Paper; the introduction of the North West Interim Cancer Drugs Fund; the Annual Report of Consultation; an update on the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment. (Minute 33 refers)
With effect from the beginning of October 2010 the Chief Executive assumed the role of Joint Chief Executive for both NHS Warrington and NHS Western Cheshire.
Page 461 Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT
The banning of smoking in public places had directly contributed to smoking cessation figures for the Trust being well above the national target.
Marilyn Knass, Medicines Management Project Facilitator, Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT, outlined proposed changes to podiatry services within the PCT area. There was a need to reduce the costs of the services by approximately 10%. The report highlighted how this would be undertaken by reducing assessment appointments; through caseload reassessment and amending service eligibility criteria. It was proposed to reduce the number of clinic sites from 26 to 22:
AGREED: That
the officers be thanked for their reports.
36 TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY SERVICES - BRIEFING PAPER FROM THE PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS The Panel considered a joint report from the Central and Eastern Cheshire and NHS Western Cheshire Primary Care Trusts on the preferred options that had been submitted for the future provision of community health services.
Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust’s preferred option was for the majority of NHS Cheshire East Community Health’s services to transfer to East Cheshire NHS Trust by the end of March 2011 (pending the creation of a new NHS Foundation Trust by the end of March 2013). The learning disability services provided by NHS Cheshire East Community Health would be transferred to Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust by the end of March 2011.
NHS Western Cheshire’s preferred option was for the majority of NHS Community Care Western Cheshire’s services to be transferred to Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust by the end of March 2011. The NHS Community Care Western Cheshire’s Contraception and Sexual Health Service would transfer to the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust by the end of March 2011 (as part of a proposal to create a new integrated service with the hospital’s services).
The Panel would be kept updated on the progress of these options
AGREED: That
the Panel be kept informed of progress on the adoption of the options put forward by the PCTs for transforming community services.
37 COMBATING CHLAMYDIA IN CHESHIRE The Panel considered a joint report of the NHS Western Cheshire and Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trusts on the actions being taken to address the screening and prevention of Chlamydia amongst young people, following press reports that Cheshire had one of the highest rates of the infection in the UK.
The Chlamydia programme for NHS Western Cheshire was commissioned from NHS Community Care Western Cheshire and delivered by the ‘RUSure’
Page 462 programme. ‘Team Chlamydia’, hosted by NHS Cheshire East Community Health, continued to be commissioned by Central and Eastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust to facilitate Chlamydia screening in Winsford and Northwich as part of its responsibility.
The local programmes worked with young people to ensure they understood the risks of catching Chlamydia and the actions they should take to reduce their chances of getting Chlamydia
Members noted that the statistics needed to be kept in context as the relatively high figures for Cheshire could be an indicator of the success of the screening process with regard to this hard to find infection.
AGREED : That
officers from the PCTs be thanked for their report.
38 LOCAL INVOLVEMENT NETWORK The Panel considered an update on the activities of the Cheshire West and Chester LINk. These included:
membership activities which included role play and video sessions Family Fun Day at Marbury Park Joint Partnership event with NHS Western Cheshire Enter & View activity Assisted Transport Survey mental health and dementia awareness
AGREED: That
Mrs Nora Dolphin be thanked for her update
Note: Having declared a personal interest in this item Pat Lott took part in the discussion.
39 HEALTH INEQUALITIES IN RURAL AREAS The Panel considered a report of the Scrutiny Officer on progress with regard to the joint project with Cheshire East on health inequalities in rural areas which was part of a national programme on health inequalities being undertaken by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. Included were an update on a mini review concerning mental health issues in rural areas and an evaluation event to be held in London on 17 November 2010.
AGREED: That
(1) the report be received.
(2) a further report be presented to this Panel in the new year upon completion of the CfPS project.
Page 463 40 UPDATE ON TASK GROUPS The Scrutiny officer provided a verbal update on the work of the recently formed Personalisation Task Group and the Mental Health Task Group. Both task groups had there first meeting and had scoped their projects. The next stage would be information gathering and meeting with officers involved in the personalisation process and from the community mental health teams.
AGREED: That
the progress be noted
41 CHESHIRE AND WIRRAL COUNCILS JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - MINUTES The Panel considered the minutes of the last meeting of the Cheshire and Wirral Councils Joint Scrutiny Committee held on 25 May 2010.
AGREED: That
the minutes be noted
Note: Having each declared a personal interest in this item Councillors Don Beckett, Graham Smith and Pat Lott took part in the discussion.
42 WORK PLAN The Panel considered its work plan for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2010/11.
AGREED: That
the work plan be endorsed.
43 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 464 AUDIT AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE 2 NOVEMBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 7.55 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Keith Musgrave (Chairman)
Councillors Mark Williams (Deputy Chairman), Brian Clarke, George Miller, Stuart Parker, Tom Parry, Adrian Walmsley and Derek Bateman
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Paul Donovan
Officers in attendance: Steve Kent − Director of Community and Environment Simon Goacher − Head of Legal and Democratic Services Mark Wynn − Head of Finance Ivor Barwin − Internal Audit Manager Nicola Samuels − Insurance and Risk Manager Mike A Jones − Democratic Services Officer
38 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST No declarations were made.
39 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2010 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
40 MINUTES OF SCHOOL GOVERNORS APPOINTMENTS PANEL The minutes from the last School Governors Appointments Panel meeting were considered. It was noted that the vacancy rate was around 22%, well above the national average of 10%, so a publicity campaign had been launched to attract new governors. It was also noted that at the Academy in Ellesmere Port, two appointments had been made but the Academy’s Constitution only allowed one position. This would be addressed at the next Panel meeting.
DECIDED: That
the Minutes of the School Governors Appointments Panel meeting held on 7 October 2010 be noted.
41 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION There were no members of the public present, and no questions had been submitted in advance.
Page 465 42 RISK REGISTER SCRUTINY - COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE The Committee received the report of the Director of Community and Environment that presented the current iteration of the Risk Register for the Community and Environment Directorate.
Members were informed that the priorities and deliverables were based on those set out in the Community & Environment Business Plan and were regularly reviewed as part of a collaborative and challenging working practice involving the directorate and partner organisations.
The Chairman reported that as part of the agreed policy and strategy (Minute No. 150, 10 November 2009 refers), progress reports on identified risks for each Directorate would be presented to the Committee as scheduled (Minute No. 183, 9 March 2010 refers).
Members queried several of the entries in the Register, and noted that many were uncertain until the full effect of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review on the Directorate and on partner organisations was known.
It was also noted that there were risks that cut across Directorates and so would be better collected into a ‘Corporate Risk Register’ that could be considered at a future meeting following consideration of all the Directorate Registers.
DECIDED: That
(1) the Community and Environment Directorate Risk Register be received and noted; and
(2) a ‘Corporate Risk Register’ be drafted for consideration at a future meeting.
43 MID YEAR REPORT ON THE COUNCIL'S TREASURY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY The Committee received the report of the Head of Finance that provided an update on the treasury management activities undertaken during the first half of the financial year 2010/11.
The report detailed the Council’s activities in terms of treasury management Strategy, the management of the organisation’s cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.
The report provided a summary in respect of investments held at the end of May 2010 (amounting to £47.15m) and advised that no new long term borrowing had been undertaken during the period due to use of cash reserves. Short term loans had been taken out to balance cash flow.
The Committee was apprised of matters in respect of:
• Long Term Loans • Short Term Loans
Page 466 • Effects of Comprehensive Spending Review • Cash Balances • Internal Audit Review • Interest rate Forecasts • Reform of Council Housing Finance • Budgetary Position 2010-11
Members noted that none of the Prudential Indicators had been breached and a prudent approach had been taken in relation to investment activity with priority being given to security and liquidity over yield, which had short term benefits but longer term disadvantages.
DECIDED: That (1) the treasury management activity for the mid-year 2010-11 be noted; and
(2) the treasury management activity carried out in the year 2010-11 to date, enabling the Council to remain within all of its treasury management Prudential Indicators, be noted.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That
the Council’s Treasury Management Report for the mid-year 2010-11 be approved.
44 ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY The Committee considered a report of the Director of Resources detailing the amended Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy, which set out the Council’s approach to delivering this Strategy.
The revised Anti-Fraud & Corruption Strategy incorporated the Strategy itself and the Whistle blowing Policy, a Fraud Response plan for managers and staff and a Data Matching Policy.
Due to a technical problem, paper copies of the report had not been circulated in advance of the meeting and Members requested time to consider the new Strategy. Although it was noted the overall Policy had not changed, the document reorganised the information and included sections such as ‘frequently asked questions’ which made it easier to read and reference. It was agreed that Members of the Audit and Governance Committee be canvassed for views which would then be considered by the Audit Working Group.
DECIDED: That
the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Audit Working Group be authorised to approve the amended Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy, and make appropriate recommendations to Council.
45 OUTSIDE BODIES UPDATE The Chairman of the Outside Bodies Working Group, Councillor Adrian Walmsley, updated Members on the recent issues and appointments considered by the Group.
Page 467
DECIDED: That
the following recommendations of the Outside Bodies Working Group be approved:
• the appointment to the Adoptions Panel remain vacant • Councillor Malcolm Byram be appointed to the North West Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.
46 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING - PROCEDURE FOR NON-CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED AT COUNCIL. The Chairman accepted this item as urgent business as negotiations on it had been undertaken since the last meeting of the full Council on 14 October and had concluded after the Agenda for this Committee had been published.
At the meeting of full Council on 14 October 2010, 26 questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting, and following a number of debates at the meeting the question time had to be curtailed with only six questions having been aired. All of the questions and answers had been published with the minutes, although many members were unhappy that their questions had not been able to be aired in public.
Following the meeting, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services had met with the Party Group Whips and drafted a revised version of Procedural Note 10 of the Constitution. This revised paper had been circulated to Committee Members for their consideration.
Members debated the revised wording and some amendments to it submitted by Councillor Paul Donovan.
DECIDED: That
(1) Further to Council Minute 49(2) (22 July 2010), the proposal to introduce Leader’s, Executive Member’s and Committee Chairmen Question Time in addition to the Councillors’ questions under Procedural Rule 10 for a trial period of 6 months not be proceeded with; and (2) Procedural Rule 10 of the Council’s Constitution be amended as detailed in the Appendix to these minutes.
47 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING - REVENUE AND BENEFITS ASSESSMENT The Chairman agreed to take this item as urgent business as the Assessment Report had only been made available after the Agenda had been published and it was appropriate that Members be advised of the outcome before the date of the next meeting.
Page 468 The Revenue and Benefits Service had undergone an Assessment from the Audit Commission, who had judged the Service as being ‘fair’. It was acknowledged that this was largely affected detrimentally by the Local Government Reorganisation process. The prospects for the Service were judged as ‘excellent’. This was particularly notable, as such a high level had not been judged for any local authority in the past.
DECIDED: That the result of the Assessment of the Revenue and Benefits Service be noted.
Chairman
Date
Page 469 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 470 EXECUTIVE 3 NOVEMBER 2010 (5.30 pm - 7.35 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Mike Jones (Chairman)
Councillors Brenda Dowding, Les Ford (Deputy Chairman), Arthur Harada, Herbert Manley, Lynn Riley and Richard Short
Visiting Members: Councillors Bob Crompton, Brian Crowe, Andrew Dawson, Jill Houlbrook, Reggie Jones, Justin Madders, Alan McKie and Stuart Parker
Officers in attendance: Steve Robinson − Chief Executive Chris Cook − Head of Culture and Recreation Simon Goacher − Head of Legal and Democratic Services Steve Kent − Director of Community and Environment Julie Gill − Director of Resources Charlie Seward − Director of Regeneration and Culture John Stephens − Director of Children and Young People Caroline Thomas − Head of Service - Learning Disabilities & Mental Health Mark Wynn − Head of Finance Patrick Sebastian − Democratic Services Officer
57 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST No declarations of interest were made.
58 MINUTES DECIDED: That
The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
59 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/OPEN SESSION No questions had been submitted prior to the meeting, and no requests had been received from the public to address the Committee.
60 ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES BY ADULTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES The Executive considered the report of the Chairman of Health and Wellbeing Select Panel that summarised the work of the Access to Health Services for Adults with Learning Disabilities Task Group’s investigation into issues people with learning disabilities encountered when accessing general health services within the Cheshire West and Chester area.
Page 471 The Executive noted that the Council and the NHS Western Cheshire PCT had produced a Learning Disabilities Strategy 2010 – 2013 and had agreed that the findings and recommendations from its review be used to help inform the Implementation Plan and Health Review arising from that Strategy. At the suggestion of the Western Cheshire PCT, the report had also been forwarded to the Care Quality Commission as an example of Member initiatives in scrutinising health provision.
Outcomes from the report would be monitored in 12 months time as part of the Learning Disabilities Strategy’s Implementation Plan and Review.
Councillor Brenda Dowding, Portfolio Holder for Adult Services led the discussion on this item and welcomed the report and praised the excellent work of the Task Group.
DECIDED: That
the report be noted.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
At the Leader’s request, the outcomes from any Scrutiny Reviews are presented to the Executive for consideration.
Alternative options
None considered.
61 PROCUREMENT OF A HIGHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENT TERM SERVICE CONTRACT FOR CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER COUNCIL The Executive considered the report of the Director of Community and Environment that set out the process for procurement of a new Highways and Environment Term Service Contract across the Cheshire West and Chester authority.
The report informed of options currently available to the Council in relation to the procurement process for a Highways and Environment Term Service Contract across the Authority in collaboration with Shropshire Council via an Inter Authority Agreement..
The Executive was requested to approve the establishment of a cross-party, Executive Highways Task Group (EHTG) to advise the Community and Environment Portfolio Holder on significant decisions required during the procurement process. The Task Group and Portfolio Holder would be supported by a Project Board of senior officers.
Councillor Lynn Riley – Portfolio Holder for Community and Environment led the discussion on this item.
Page 472 DECIDED: That
(1) the procurement process for a Highways and Environment Term Service Contract across the Authority, in collaboration with Shropshire Council, as specified in the report, with terms of collaboration and cost sharing to be encapsulated in an Inter Authority Agreement be agreed between the two authorities, be approved; and
(2) a cross-party, Executive Highways Task Group (EHTG), comprising Councillors Lynn Riley, Jill Houlbrook, John Grimshaw, Malcolm Gaskill and Tony Sherlock to advise the Community and Environment Portfolio Holder on significant decisions required during the procurement process, supported by an Officer Project Board, be appointed.
(3) the Community and Environment Portfolio Holder be given powers to vary the membership of the EHTG as and when business needs require.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To enable the procurement of a new Highways and Environment Term Service Contract within the required timescale.
Alternative options
To procure new arrangements as a single authority.
62 REFERENCE FROM LICENSING COMMITTEE (28/09/2010): DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL PART-TIME EVENING/NIGHT TIME HACKNEY CARRIAGE STANDS/RANKS AT WITTON STREET, NORTHWICH; WOODLAND ROAD, GREAT SUTTON; LEDSHAM ROAD, LITTLE SUTTON AND LOWER BRIDGE STREET, CHESTER - S63 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 The Executive considered the report of the Director of Community concerning recommendations made by the Licensing Committee at its meeting held on 28 September 2010 in respect of enforcement issues relating to illegal parking by hackney carriage proprietors associated with a lack of rank space within the Vale Royal and Ellesmere Port and Neston hackney carriage zones, and requests made by the hackney carriage trade for additional rank space in the Ellesmere Port and Neston and Chester hackney carriage zones.
Executive were informed of the details relating to reasons for the proposed hackney carriage stands/ranks in the respective Zones.
The report informed that Highways Officers and the Police had supported the proposed locations for the hackney carriage stands/ranks as detailed in the report.
Councillor Lynn Riley – Portfolio Holder for Community and Environment led the discussion on this item.
Page 473 DECIDED: That
(1) Approval be confirmed and public notice be given of the intention to designate part-time hackney carriage stands/ranks on the following lengths of road:
Witton Street, Northwich (south side)
Hackney carriage stand/rank for ten vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 14 metres west of its junction with Venables Road for a distance of 62 metres in a westerly direction.
Woodland Road, Great Sutton (south side)
Hackney carriage stand/rank for two vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 60 metres east of its junction with Chester Road for a distance of 11 metres in a westerly direction.
Ledsham Road, Little Sutton (north side)
Hackney carriage stand/rank for two vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00 am from a point 10 metres east of the common boundary of numbers 11 and 13 Ledsham Road for a distance of 10 metres in a westerly direction.
Lower Bridge Street, Chester
Hackney carriage stand/rank for three vehicles operating between 8.00 pm and 5.00am from a point 52 metres south of its junction with Grosvenor Street/Pepper Street for a distance of 15 metres in a southerly direction.
(2) In the event of no objections being received within the period specified in the notice, the hackney carriage stands/ranks be appointed as set out in the report and the public notice.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To enable appropriate numbers of hackney carriage stands/ranks to be designated and to maintain adequate provision of hackney carriage stands/ranks in the respective hackney carriage zones.
Alternative options
None considered.
63 OPTIONS FOR A THEATRE AND CONVENTION CENTRE FOR CHESTER The Executive considered the report of the Director of Regeneration and Culture that presented a summary of the findings of a feasibility study into the provision of a theatre and convention centre for Chester (Minute No.46, 15 July 2009 refers).
Page 474 The report informed that the study had determined that the development of a theatre with mixed programming, producing and presenting would provide the optimum solution for Chester.
The Executive was apprised that the study had determined that the development of a medium scale theatre would provide the optimum solution, to include:
• C.800 seat main house, with fly tower, ideally capable of being reduced to c.450 for productions attracting smaller audiences. • 200 seat flexible studio theatre. • Ancillary back stage and public facilities. • Bar/café and, depending on location, destination restaurant.
The Executive noted that the study had also determined that the development of a medium scale convention centre would provide the optimum solution
• Major hall c.2,000m² sub-dividable. • Additional c.1,000m² flexible ‘breakout/ exhibition’ space. • Foyer/ reception area c.1,500m². • Flexible floor options important e.g. stepped platforms, removable seating, etc.
The Executive further noted that the study had determined that there was a demand and a market gap for the provision of a convention centre in Chester and that the proposed product would compliment the provision of the Theatre and make a significant positive impact on the visitor economy.
Visiting Members: Councillors Brian Crowe, Reggie Jones and Jill Houlbrook spoke in relation to this item.
Councillor Richard Short – Portfolio Holder for Culture and Recreation led the discussion on this item.
DECIDED: That
(1) authority be given to the Director of Regeneration and Culture to undertake further work to facilitate final site selection for a medium scale theatre and medium scale convention centre, as set out in paragraph 5.3.5 of the report (to consider issues of deliverability, cost, funding strategy and procurement options) to be carried out within existing budgets;
(2) the Gorse Stacks option not be pursued any further; and
(3) authority be given to the Director of Regeneration and Culture to engage key stakeholders in the development of the final design brief and programme.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To facilitate a final site selection, and provide the necessary information on cost, funding strategy and procurement options to underpin future decisions.
Page 475 Alternative options
As detailed within the report.
64 MID YEAR REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE 2010-11 The Executive considered the report of the Director of Resources that set out the performance of the Council for the first six months of 2010-11, updating Members upon the position as reported to Executive on 8 September 2010 (Minute No. 39 refers).
The revenue section of the report summarised the forecast revenue outturn position of the Council as at 31 March 2011 in respect of service and corporate budgets, and the implications for the Council’s reserves and balances. The capital section summarised the forecast Capital Outturn position for 2010-11 and the financing of the 2010-11 capital programme.
A separate booklet containing detailed information on the individual positions for each Directorate and information on corporate budgets were circulated prior to the meeting.
Visiting Members: Councillors Justin Madders and Reggie Jones spoke in relation to this item.
Councillor Les Ford – Portfolio Holder for Finance led the discussion on this item.
DECIDED: That
(1) the forecast revenue outturn of the Council as set out in this report and the booklet be noted;
(2) the progress in committing the 2010-11 capital programme, and revised expenditure forecast as set out in the report and the booklet be noted;
(3) the intention to review approved 2010-11 capital schemes which have not been progressed to date to ensure capital spend is still necessary and in line with priorities (Paragraph 5.6 of the report) be noted;
(4) the indicative performance outcomes for each Directorate as set out in this report and the accompanying booklet be noted;
(5) the potential full carry forward of any underspend on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget to 2011-12, currently £0.8m (subject to outturn). Details are in Section B2 (Children & Young People’s Directorate) of the booklet be noted;
(6) the potential carry forward of underspent delegated School’s budgets of £4.8m (subject to outturn). Details as per Section B2 (Children & Young People’s Directorate) of the booklet be noted;
(7) (subject to outturn) the call on contingency to fund expenditure on corporate projects (£0.9m), as detailed in Section B5 (Resources Directorate) of the booklet be noted;
Page 476
(8) a supplementary revenue estimate authorising usage of £0.5m of the Housing Revenue Account Balance to fund activities held over from 2009- 10, be approved [details in Section G (Housing Revenue Account) of the booklet];
(9) a virement of £0.5m from various Childrens capital projects to support expenditure at Weaverham High School, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved; and
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: That
the allocation of £1m from the Dedicated Schools Grant to Schools as detailed in Section B2 (Children and Young Peoples Directorate) of the booklet be approved.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To comply with Finance and Contract procedure rules and ensure that the Council is a well mangaged authority.
Alternative options
None considered.
65 RECOMMENDATION FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Executive considered the report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that provided information on the challenge session that had been carried out on the subject of Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 October 2010.
The report presented by Councillor Andrew Dawson – Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee contained a number of recommendations arising from the scrutiny exercise.
The Executive was informed about the Council’s approach to identifying how key policies and procedures impacted on different equality and diversity strands, and that the recommendations as detailed in the report were designed to strengthen that approach.
DECIDED: That
(1) the tools presently used to carry out the Equality Impact Assessments be reviewed so that those carrying out the assessments are assisted in their task, to produce consistent assessments across the Council, that they challenge and support the assessments being produced in the light of supporting evidence and data; and, produce an assessment showing the risks both before and after (as needs be) mitigating measures have been applied; and
Page 477 (2) the corporate Equality and Diversity officer test the underlying data and assumptions made for each EIA against known issues and concerns and that each assessment be moderated against each other to ensure a consistency of approach across the Council.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To improve and refine the process for Equality Impact Assesments so they can be fully utilised to help the Council anticipate problems and make informed decisions.
Alternative options
None considered.
66 CHESTER CATHEDRAL QUARTER PHASE 1 - SIGN OFF OF CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT PROCESS The Executive considered the report of the Director of Regeneration and Culture that described the contractor procurement options that had been considered and set out the procurement strategy that had been accepted by the Cathedral Quarter Executive Group.
The report informed that the various components of the Chester Cathedral Quarter Phase 1 (CQPP1) project were well advanced in the planning process. One element had already received planning approval with two other elements due for submission later in the month.
Councillor Herbert Manley – Portfolio Holder for Prosperity led the discussion on this item.
DECIDED: That
(1) the recommendation of the CQP1 Executive Group to procure, following OJEU procedures, one lead contractor to undertake all elements of the CQP1 project, be endorsed; and
(2) The Director of Regeneration be given delegated authority to accept the most economically advantageous tender subject to it being within the budget available and to detailed evaluation by the appointed assessment team.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
To enable the procurement of a suitable lead contractor from the widest pool available on terms that will allow incremental growth of the contract value and to enable the appointment of the chosen contractor in an efficient manner.
Alternative options
As detailed in the report including:
• one main contractor for all elements • separate contractors for internal and external works • separate contractors for each discrete element.
Page 478
67 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING. DECIDED:
That Councillor Mark Stocks replace Councillor Gareth Anderson as Chairman of the Education and Children Policy Development Board and as Assistant Executive Member, Education and Children.
Note: The Chairman agreed to accept this as an urgent item as a formal replacement for Councillor Anderson was needed before the next scheduled meeting of the Executive as meetings of the PDB were to take place.
Chairman
Date
Publication date: 4 November 2010
Page 479 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 480 PLANNING BOARD A 9 NOVEMBER 2010 (4.00 pm - 6.00 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Ralph Oultram (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Storrar (Deputy Chairman), Bob Barton, Don Beckett, Kay Loch, Graham Smith, Alex Tate, Mark Williams and Norman Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Brian Crowe
Reserve Member: Councillors Graham Smith (in place of Councillor Brian Crowe)
Visiting Members: Councillors Malcolm Gaskill, John Grimshaw, Mark Ingram and Barbara Roberts
Officers in Iwan Hughes − Area Planning Manager (North attendance: & East) Adrian Crowther − Principal Planning Officer Steve Lewis − Principal Planning Officer Neil Lewis − Senior Planning Officer Paul Johnston − Development Officer (H/ways) Peter Murray − Tree Consultant, Specialist Environmental Services Tim Williams − Senior Tree Officer Domenico Centeleghe − Solicitor Sue Wakeford − Democratic Services Officer
63 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS There were no Declarations of Interests.
64 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of Planning Board A held on 12 October 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
65 PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE REFERRED TO STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE No applications were referred to the Strategic Planning Committee.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS Planning Board A considered the reports of the Head of Planning and Transport that made recommendations for approval and refusal of planning applications, together with the late information report circulated at the meeting as the information contained therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.
The late information report referred to Agenda Items 5, 8 and 9 (Minute Items 66, 69 and 70).
Page 481 66 10/01584/FUL - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE TEMPORARY INSTALLATION FOR 3 YEARS, OF A WIND MONITORING MAST, UP TO 16M HIGH AGL, SUPPORTED BY GUY-WIRES, COMPLETE WITH INSTRUMENTS (RESUBMISSION OF 09/02486/FUL) AT OXHEYS FARM, OXHEYS LANE, RUSHTON, TARPORLEY, CHESHIRE CW6 9AT Agenda item 5. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Mrs Latham who spoke against the application, Dave Maddock who spoke on behalf of Alpraham Parish Council, Michael Scott who spoke on behalf of Rushton Parish Council and Tristan Mackie, who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant.
The Principal Planning Officer clarified certain points:
• application - this was the third application for this site • consultation – the address used was generated from the computer and letters to neighbours sent out on this basis. The mast was over 1 kilometre from the edge of the CWAC boundary. • siting - the mast had been erected in the wrong location, the agreed position of the mast was 50 metres to the south. • height - the mast itself was 15 metres high, the additional equipment raised the height to 16 metres. • certificate B – it was confirmed that the original certificate dated 23 November 2009 had been included in the application validation documents. • End of period, if approved – 31 January 2013
A Visiting Ward Member observed that the mast had already been there for 5 years and Members were being asked to extend the time period for a further two or three years. He wondered how much information was required to be gathered. Another Visiting Member asked if the ground was at the same level at both the agreed location and the mast’s current position. This could not be evaluated at the meeting.
Two Members reported that on the site visit the mast was not readily visible in daylight from afar.
The Area Planning Manager (North & East) highlighted paragraph 6.2 from the report regarding treating the application on its own merits.
A proposal to approve the application was carried by 8 votes for to 1 against.
DECIDED: That
this application be approved subject to:
(1) an additional condition that no lights were to be fixed on the mast.
(2) the conditions detailed in the report.
Note: An informative be attached to the permission that the Council requests a copy of the information measured and collected from the mast.
Page 482
67 10/01669/FUL - REPLACEMENT DWELLING (AMENDMENT TO 07-0392-FUL) AT DANE FARM, NORTHWICH ROAD, DUTTON, NORTHWICH, CHESHIRE WA4 4HE Agenda item 6. This application had been deferred from an earlier meeting of Planning Board A (14 September 2010) Minute No. 41, and had been the subject of a site inspection on that date.
The Chairman advised Members that further to the issue of the ecology report on the provision for the bats, negotiations were still in progress regarding which building, either new or existing, should be utilised as the bat roost. As the negotiations were not concluded he suggested that the application be deferred.
A proposal to defer the application was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be deferred to the next meeting of Planning Board A to resolve the bat roost location.
68 10/01966/FUL - PROPOSED EXTENSIONS TO FRONT AND SIDE AND CONVERSION TO THREE DWELLINGS AT BIRD HURST, VICARAGE LANE, HELSBY, FRODSHAM, CHESHIRE WA6 9AE Agenda item 7. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Mark Stanley who spoke against the application.
A Visiting Ward Member expressed the concerns of residents that it was a three bedroom house at the end of a narrow road, with six cars being parked at the front and considered it an overdevelopment of the site.
A Member observed that the majority of the other houses in the area were family residences. If the permission was granted that this property would become three terraced houses and would not be in keeping with the character of the area. He also understood the road to be currently unadopted. Another Member believed that the proposed conversion was not appropriate for the area and was concerned about car parking. Overdevelopment of the site was also a concern.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried by 8 votes for to 1 against.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the following reasons:
the proposed development which involves significant extensions to this already extended property and allocating much of the front garden area to parking is considered to adversely alter the appearance and character of the original building in an area of detached dwellings set within generous garden plots. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies BE1 and H7 of the adopted Vale Royal Borough Local Plan First Review Alteration.
Page 483 69 10/02060/FUL - CREATION OF FIRST FLOOR TO BUNGALOW TO FORM TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING AT BUNGALOW ADJACENT HEFFERSTON GRANGE FARM, GRANGE LANE, WEAVERHAM, NORTHWICH, CHESHIRE CW8 2SR Agenda item 8. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
The Principal Planning Officer advised Members that since compiling the report the building had been found to be much older than previously assessed and might require Listed Building Consent as it was situated in the curtilage of a Listed Building.
A proposal to defer the application was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be deferred to the next meeting of Planning Board A for Listed Building consideration.
70 10/02123/OUT - CONSTRUCTION OF ONE PAIR OF SEMI DETACHED DWELLINGS (RESUBMISSION 10/01462/OUT) AT LAND ADJACENT TO 35 WARRINGTON ROAD, CUDDINGTON, NORTHWICH, CHESHIRE Agenda item 9. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was Susan Hughes who spoke against the application, Ken Nixon who spoke on behalf of Cuddington Parish Council and Kevin Pearson who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant.
A Visiting Ward Member was concerned that the proposals were adjacent to the busy A49 trunk road with limited access to the site. He did not believe that infilling of garden sites was required. Another Member believed that there was no shortage of houses in that area. One Member supported the application.
The Area Planning Manager (North & East) highlighted paragraph 6.2 of the report to Members to clarify the housing land supply issue which currently stood at 3.9 years (as advised by the Spatial Planning Department). The Planning Officer also advised that the site was within Tier 1 (not Tier 2 as stated in Paragraph 6.1 of the report). It was clarified which trees would be retained under the proposals.
A proposal to approve the application was lost by 3 votes for to 6 against.
A further proposal to refuse the application was carried by 6 votes for to 3 against.
DECIDED: That
this application be refused for the following reason:
the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the adopted Vale Royal Borough Local Plan First Review Alteration, in particular policy BE1 criteria (xi) and (xii) of the Local Plan; and would cause harm to the objectives of this policy. The proposal does not take account of the characteristics of the site and its relationship with the
Page 484 su rroundings and views into the site. The resultant form would detract from the character and appearance of the locality, failing to reinforce and to safeguard the character of the area.
71 10/12539/COU - CHANGE OF USE TO HMO FOR 8 PERSONS (RETROSPECTIVE) AT 39 CHEYNEY ROAD, CHESTER, CHESHIRE CH1 4BR Agenda item 10. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was M Gilbert, the applicant’s agent, who did not take up his request to speak.
A proposal to approve the application was carried unanimously.
DECIDED: That
this application be approved subject to the conditions detailed in the report.
72 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 10/00002/ORD AT LAND BETWEEN THE SPINNEY AND MULBERRY HOUSE, WARRINGTON ROAD, HOOLE VILLAGE, CHESTER, CHESHIRE Agenda item 11. This order had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
The Tree Consultant, Specialist Environmental Services, clarified the ‘modifications to the map’ referred to in the recommendation. There had been a drafting error to the boundaries of the woodland to which the order referred. The change would reduce the area of the woodland on the map by the southern triangle of land indicated on the location plan. He confirmed that there were no trees in this area.
The Tree Consultant, Specialist Environmental Services confirmed that it was considered that the woodland should be protected as it was an important amenity to the area. In reply to a Member’s question he acknowledged that the woodland contained many self-seeded trees and although the order would protect the trees, the Council could not force the owner to employ good management in the woodland. The Council would only be forced to act if any trees became dangerous.
One Member noted that CWAC should be encouraging the protection of woodland areas as the country had the least woodland cover in all Europe.
A proposal to confirm the order was carried by 7 votes for with 2 abstentions.
DECIDED: That
the order be confirmed with the modifications to the map as referred to in the first Schedule and corresponding map.
Page 485
73 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 10/00004/ORD AT SMITHY HOUSE, SMITHY LANE, WILLASTON Agenda item 12. This order had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
Present at the meeting was David Huyton who spoke against the order and Thomas Ainsworth who spoke in support of the order.
A proposal to confirm the order was carried by 8 votes for with 1 against.
DECIDED: That
the order be confirmed as referred to in the first Schedule and corresponding map.
74 APPEALS REPORT DECIDED: That
the information contained within the appeals report be accepted.
75 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 486 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 11 NOVEMBER 2010 (6.00 pm - 8.55 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Dawson (Chairman)
Councillors John Ebo (Deputy Chairman), Bob Barton, Malcolm Byram, John Grimshaw, Pamela Hall, Myles Hogg, Eleanor Johnson, Pat Merrick, Tom Parry, Graham Smith and Don Beckett (Reserve) (in place of Councillor Brian Clarke)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Clarke
Reserve Members: Councillors Don Beckett (in place of Councillor Brian Clarke)
Visiting Members: Councillors Brian Crowe, Andrew Needham, Ralph Oultram, Alex Tate and Ann Wright
Officers in attendance: Penny Housley − Senior Manager-Overview and Scrutiny Mark Palethorpe − Director of Adult Social Care and Health Phil Purvis − Senior Manager - Policy, Adult Social care and Health Joe Riley − Head of Development and Improvement
52 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Visiting Member Councillor Brian Crowe declared a personal interest in Item 6 Scrutiny Review of Relationship with Local Councils draft report as a member of Mollington Parish Council.
53 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
54 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of the meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 October 2010 be approved and signed by the Chairman.
55 PUBLIC QUESTIONS/ OPEN SESSION Mr David Robinson had submitted a number of questions in relation to the proposed application to change the category of Christleton High School from a Foundation School to an Academy. He advised that Christleton High School Chair of governors had written to parents with proposals for the school to leave the local authority and become an academy. He felt this was being done in a very rushed way, on a very short time table with little, if any, consultation with the school’s wider community. Parents were notified of the governor’s view as recently as half term and are required to respond by 18 November 2010. The governors would meet on 25 November 2010 to make a decision.
Page 487
The Chairman read out the answers he had been provided by John Stephens, Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services.
Question - Does Cheshire West and Chester Council feel that this consultation period is too short and should be extended in a more open and democratic way ? Answer - The process for schools to convert to academy status is set out in legislation. The regulations state that schools are required to carry out a consultation but it is up to them to decide whom and how to consult. There is no specified length of time for the consultation and schools have flexibility in how it is conducted.
Question - What consultation has there been between Christleton High School and the authority concerning their proposals ? Answer - Schools are not required to consult with the Local Authority about a proposal to become an academy, but Christleton High School did copy in the LA (as a matter of courtesy) to the letters that had been sent to both staff and parents/carers.
Question - What dialogue is the authority having with the school concerning their proposals to leave the family of the local authority? Answer - The decision to apply to become an academy rests with the governing body. There is no requirement to consult with the local authority. Christleton is already a Foundation Trust and, as such, enjoys a good deal of autonomy. It remains, however, a strong contributor to the family of schools and we would want Christleton to continue to do so, regardless of its governance structure. Both the University of Chester Church of England Academy and the E-ACT Academy in Winsford play a part in the family of schools. Christleton’s commitment to the Local Authority family of schools remains strong and we will carry on working closely with the school.
Question - Does Cheshire West and Chester Council wish Christleton High School to remain as part of the local education authority? Answer - Regardless of its governance status, we would want Christleton to continue contributing to the overall system of schools. We expect that the school will maintain its links with its associated primary schools and will want to be part of the network of secondary schools. Academy funding agreements state that they must ensure that the school will be at the heart of its community, collaborating and sharing facilities and expertise with other schools and the wider community.
Question - Is the authority encouraging any of its schools to become academies under the new proposals from Michael Gove? Answer -The decision to apply for academy status rests with governing bodies and headteachers. The local authority has not had any conversations with schools specifically to encourage or discourage them from pursuing academy status.
Page 488 Question - What is the administration’s view on the future role of the Local Authority? Answer - The Local Authority will continue to have overall responsibility for ensuring that there are sufficient school places to meet demand locally and all academies are required to participate in the local coordination of admissions. The Local Authority also has responsibilities for statutory special educational needs assessment and monitoring, education welfare prosecutions, supervision and attendance orders and educational psychology statutory assessments and attendance at tribunals. The Local Authority also retains statutory obligations for permanently excluded pupils. We retain powers in relation to schools requiring additional support. Additionally, the Council and partners retain significant responsibilities for promoting better outcomes for children, young people, families and communities.
Mr Robinson thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for gaining answers to his questions.
Mr Roger Parkin had submitted questions relating to area working and parish councils. The Chairman advised that he would consider these questions during the discussion of the Relationship with Local Councils Scrutiny Report.
AGREED: That
the supplementary questions submitted by Mr David Robinson relating to proposed application to change the category of Christleton High School from a Foundation School to an Academy be submitted to the Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services with a request that answers be supplied direct to Mr Robinson and copied to the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
56 SCRUTINY REVIEW OF RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL COUNCILS DRAFT REPORT Councillor Andrew Dawson, Chairman, introduced the draft report. He advised that the intention, once the Committee had an opportunity to discuss this first draft, was to consult Local Councils in the Borough, together with ChALC and the Executive. Following the consultation period the report, as amended, would be submitted to the Committee for final approval.
The Committee debated each of the recommendations in turn. Visiting Members and members of the public present at the meeting were also invited to join the debate.
Recommendation 1 referred to the production of a ‘Doomsday Book’ which would contain information on Local Councils in the Borough. Councillor Dawson circulated suggested amendments to Recommendation 1 and its supporting text and made a presentation highlighting how the data could be used to aid transparency and accountability. The need for the Principal Authority to not make subjective assessments of Local Council performance was stressed.
Page 489 AGREED: That
(1) the draft Relationship with Local Councils scrutiny report be amended as follows and circulated to all Local Councils in the Borough, Cheshire Association of Local Councils and the Executive for consultation: • Recommendation 1 – amended as circulated at the meeting • Recommendation 2 – no changes • Recommendation 3 – no changes • Recommendation 4 – no changes • Recommendation 5 – deleted • Recommendation 6 – no changes • Recommendation 7 – no changes • Recommendation 8 – amended as circulated at the meeting • Recommendation 9 – no changes • Recommendation 10 – no changes • Recommendation 11 – no changes • Recommendation 12 – no changes • Recommendation 13 – no changes • Recommendation 14 – amended to include Village Design Statements and Village Appraisals.
(2) it be recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny function carry out a review of the Streetscene Service Standards in the 2011/2012 Municipal Year.
NOTE: having previously declared a personal interest in this item Councillor Brian Crowe took part in the discussion.
NOTE: Councillor Eleanor Johnson requested that it be recorded that she had voted against Recommendations 2 and 3
NOTE Councillors John Ebo, Myles Hogg and Graham Smith requested that it be recorded that they had voted against Recommendation 6.
57 CONSULTATION RESPONSE - "LIBERATING THE NHS: THE NHS WHITE PAPER" Councillor Don Beckett introduced the item and explained why he had requested it be considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He was concerned about how the response to the Government consultation on the NHS had been handled. Due to the far reaching implications he felt all Councillors should have had an opportunity to input.
Mark Palethorpe, Director of Adult Social Care and Health, advised that the consultation response had been prepared before he took up his post. He had reviewed the process and felt that there were lessons which could be learnt. He felt that it was critical that as many views as possible were considered.
Joe Riley, Head of Development and Improvement, asked if the Committee wished to offer any guidance on the process for responding to the many consultations received by the Council.
Page 490 The Committee considered that the impact of the NHS White Paper should be looked at by all Policy Development Boards in order that the policy implications could be properly considered.
AGREED: that
1) the Director for Adult Social Care and Health prepare a briefing paper for all Members of Cheshire West and Chester Council on the NHS White Paper.
2) Councillor Don Beckett and Councillor Andrew Dawson develop a suggested process for responses to Government consultations.
58 REVIEW OF COUNCIL OWNED FARMS - REPRESENTATIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS The Chairman advised that, along with others groups and individuals, all Cheshire West and Chester Councillors had been invited to take part in the review of Council owned farms which the Committee was undertaking. Councillors had been invited to attend this meeting to provide evidence to the Committee. This would not be the only opportunity for Councillors to give their views.
Councillor Eleanor Johnson read out a statement from Councillor Brian Crowe, who had left the meeting before consideration of this item. Councillor Crowe considered that on balance the Council should no longer be in the farming business. However, he did not feel all farms should be sold. He felt the land holding was a great responsibility and decisions nor action should not be rushed. A solution could be to sell the farms as and when they became vacant.
Councillor Ralph Oultram outlined his views to the Committee. He considered that: • Council owned farms were a way into other land based businesses. • Council owned farms played a crucial role in rural regeneration • The sites may provide future opportunities for homes and cottage industry • Council owned farms were an opportunity to showcase best practice and profitability • Keeping council ownership could address future needs not yet recognised • Council owned farms, and the wider rural economy, could be strengthened through diversification • Cheshire was recognised as a lead County in equine business and this could be strengthened Councillor Oultram summarised that he was in favour of retention of the farm estate for land use and to keep options for the future open.
The Committee then questioned Councillor Oultram on his statement.
Councillor John Ebo read a statement on behalf of Councillor Andrew Needham who had left the meeting before consideration of the item. Councillor Needham stressed the importance of consulting Cheshire East Council.
The Chairman thanked the Councillors for their input so far and concluded the item by stating that the issues raised would be revisited at future meetings, including the one to be held on 9 December 2010 where officers of the Council would be questioned.
Page 491
AGREED: that
the information supplied by Councillors in relation to Council owned farms be noted and considered as part of the ongoing scrutiny review.
59 REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 QUARTERLY REPORT - GRANT OF AUTHORISATIONS Penny Housley, Senior Manager Overview and Scrutiny, introduced the report on behalf of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services which outlined the authorisations granted to officers to carry out covert surveillance as required by Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Committee considered that the authorisation granted was an appropriate use of the powers.
AGREED: That
the authorisation granted was an appropriate use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
60 WORK PLAN AGREED: That
the work plan for the remainder of the Municipal Year be noted.
61 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 492 STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE 18 NOVEMBER 2010 (4.00 pm - 7.55 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Myles Hogg (Chairman)
Councillors Malcolm Byram (Deputy Chairman), Brian Clarke, Angela Claydon, Brian Crowe, Malcolm Gaskill, Hilarie McNae, Ralph Oultram, Stuart Parker, Helen Weltman and Mark Williams
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hugo Deynem, John Grimshaw, George Miller and Mark Stocks
Reserve Members: Councillors Brian Crowe (in place of Councillor John Grimshaw), Ralph Oultram (in place of Councillor Hugo Deynem), Helen Weltman (in place of Councillor George Miller) and Mark Williams (in place of Councillor Mark Stocks)
Visiting Members: Councillors Don Beckett, Andrew Dawson, Les Ford, Mark Ingram, Alan McKie, Andrew Needham, Lynn Riley, Barbara Roberts, Andrew Storrar and Norman Wright
Officers in Steve Kent − Director of Community and Environment attendance: Chris Hindle − Head of Planning and Transport John Jeffrey − Head of Waste Management & Streetscene Fiona Edwards − Development Planning Manager Jon Sutcliffe − Area Planning Manager Paul Friston − Principal Planning Officer Graham Aveyard − Environmental Protection Team Leader Paul Parry − Principal Development Officer (H/ways) Ken Jones − Principal Development Officer (H/ways) Edd Snell − Principal Landscape Officer Nicholas McGinn − Group Solicitor Environment Sue Wakeford − Democratic Services Officer
35 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Item No 4
10/00597/DECC - Application to Construct and Operate a Wind Turbine Generating Station of up to 60MW (Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989) at Frodsham Canal Deposit Grounds, Lordship Lane, Frodsham, Cheshire
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Les Ford and Mark Ingram each declared a personal interest as they could all see the application site from where they lived.
Councillor Andrew Dawson declared a personal interest as he was a member of Frodsham Town Council.
Page 493
Item No 5
10/01834/WAS - Development of a Proposed Waste Treatment Plant at the former chlorine works - resubmission of 09/02047/WAS at Land and Buildings to West Side of Lostock Works, Griffiths Road, Lostock Gralam
Councillor Les Ford declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he is the Deputy Chair of the Joint Waste Board.
Councillor Malcolm Byram indicated that with the leave of the Chairman, he wished to make a statement to the Committee when it considered Item 5 – Proposed Waste Treatment Plant, Lostock Gralam.
36 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 21 October 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Strategic Planning Committee considered the reports of the Head of Planning and Transport that made comments on and recommendations for approval of planning applications, together with the Late Information Report circulated at the meeting as the information contained therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.
The Late Information Report referred to Agenda Items 4 and 5 (Minute Items 37 and 38).
In view of the significance of the applications and given the level of representations and attendance by the public, the Chairman announced that, in the exercise of his discretion, the normal public speaking time was to be extended from 3 minutes as follows:
(i) Agenda Item 4 , the Objector, Supporter and Agent were given 10 minutes in which to speak and the Parish Councils, 5 minutes. (ii) Agenda Item 5, both Parish Councils and the applicant were given 5 minutes in which to speak.
37 10/00597/DECC - APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIND TURBINE GENERATING STATION OF UP TO 60MW (SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989) AT FRODSHAM CANAL DEPOSIT GROUNDS, LORDSHIP LANE, FRODSHAM, CHESHIRE Agenda Item 4. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day which included viewing the site from five different vantage points in the West Cheshire area.
Present at the meeting was: Roger Young who spoke on behalf of Residents Against the Windfarm against the application, Andrew Basden who spoke on behalf of Re-Use in support of the application, Graham Bondi who spoke on behalf
Page 494 of Frodsham Town Council, Sarah Temple who spoke on behalf of Helsby Parish Council and Stephen Bell who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant’s agent.
The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application. It was a consultation on an application from the Secretary of State. Because of the size of the scheme, it would be determined by the Secretary of State, but the views of the Council were being sought. If the Council objected to the scheme then he confirmed that there would automatically be a Public Inquiry. He drew Members attention to the Late Information Report which included a redefined recommendation that replaced the original recommendation in the agenda report. Also there was the revised position regarding the Regional Spatial Strategy that was again part of the Development Plan.
The proposals were for two groups of turbines on an open site in the green belt. The description of the scheme and turbines were described and shown on plans, diagrams and photographs projected for Members and the public.
Three Visiting Members spoke, raising the concerns of local residents:
• they supported the principle of wind energy but not a wind farm amongst houses. • the location was in one of the most deprived areas of CWAC, which would suffer even further from the detrimental effects of the proposals. • the wind farm had overall negative impact on the locality. • how could the local air currents regarding the M56 and the Ince Recovery Park have been determined when the latter was not built yet. • wind turbines were contrary to the Green Belt policy, which was there to prevent industrialisation of the area. • the production of electricity was not a mitigation but a conflicting policy. • that Supplementary Planning Document 4 - Landscape Sensitivity and Wind Turbine Development, described 20 wind turbines as being a highly sensitive intrusion which over dominated the site in scale. • the unacceptable impact on the landscape character and visual amenity. • many protected species of birds and bats would be severely affected and it was an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to kill any protected species. Eurasian Plover, Northern Lapwing and Marsh Harrier were all protected. • low frequency noise. • it was contrary to the Frodsham Town Design Statement Supplementary Design Document which referred to specific uninterrupted views from Frodsham to be protected.
One Visiting Member highlighted that the application had received 563 letters of opposition and 293 letters of support. However, on analysis of a proportion of the support letters, only 65 had come from residents of Frodsham, Helsby and Elton.
Members debated the application. The potential impacts from low frequency noise were clarified by the Environmental Protection Team Leader. He advised that they had reassessed the Environmental Statement but the work was still not complete. The latest results were contained within the Late Information Report. However
Page 495 there were still areas that the Environmental Protection Unit did not agree with and hence it had recommended the application be refused.
Some Members expressed support for finding alternative types of energy but in the right location. One Member observed that the main structure of the wind turbines would be 80 metres high and 125 metres to the tip of the turbine blade. Another Member asked that, if permission was granted, that datum points were agreed before the development commenced. However, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the levels where the turbines were proposed to be located would not be raised. One Member was against wind farms on land but supported those located in the sea, for example off the coast of Anglesey.
The amenity value of views was discussed and it was acknowledged that there was a difference between a view from a property and the vantage from a landscape point. One Member was alarmed at the visual effect the wind turbines would have on the historic view seen from Helsby Hillfort over the Mersey Estuary. At present this was still essentially the same view that had been seen for centuries, but if it was punctuated with wind turbines, it would not be and she considered that this would not be a beneficial use of Green Belt land.
Light flicker and its associated problems to drivers on the M56 was raised. The Principal Development Officer (H/Ways) advised that the Highways Agency was responsible for motorways and they had no objections to the application. The effect on bird habitats had already been raised, but a Member was concerned that migrating flocks of birds could be upset by the turbines and be shifted into the fight path for the local airports, which would be a danger.
Members agreed that the impact on local residents would be considerable. Members had viewed the proposed wind farm site from Frodsham and Helsby but there was also a wider view from the other side of the estuary which also needed to be considered.
Members agreed to include an additional recommendation requesting the Secretary of State before proceeding to seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether the application was lawful by reason of its unavoidable adverse impacts upon protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 if the development was proceeded with. If it was found to be unlawful then the Secretary of State be asked to reject the application to avoid an unnecessary public enquiry.
A proposal to inform the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change that the local planning authority objects to the application for the reasons given in the Late Information Report with the additional clause as described above was carried by 10 votes for and with none against and with one abstention.
DECIDED: That
(1) the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change be informed that the local planning authority:
(i) objects to the application on the grounds of objection set out below; (ii) requests the Secretary of State to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether this application is lawful under the Wildlife
Page 496 and Countryside Act 1981 before proceeding. If it is found to be unlawful then he reject the application to avoid an unnecessary public enquiry. (iii) requests that a public inquiry be held pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Electricity Act 1989 before the Secretary of State reaches a decision on the application.
Grounds of Objection
The Local Planning Authority considers that the development is contrary to the following ‘saved’ policies of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan (First Review Alteration) (2006)
(i) BE21 (i, iii, iv and v) (Renewable Energy) (the wider benefits of the renewable energy development in this case are outweighed by the considerations listed) (ii) GS3 (North Cheshire Green Belt), (iii) NE18 (Mersey Estuary Zone), (iv) BE1 (i), (ii) (vii) and (xi) (Safeguarding & Improving the Quality of the Environment) (v) NE2 (Designated Sites of International & National Nature Conservation Importance), (adjacent to the application site) (vi) NE3 (Designated Sites of Local and Regional Nature Conservation & Geological Importance), (vii) NE5 (Endangered Species), (viii) BE13 (Ancient Monuments/Archaeological Importance) (ix) P6 (Noise Pollution)
In addition the application fails to respond adequately to the guidance in the Vale Royal Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents:
SPD5 ‘Landscape Character’ (2007) SPD4 ‘Landscape Sensitivity and Wind Turbines’ (2007)
The Local Planning Authority considers that:
(a) there would be unacceptable harm to the Green Belt and there are insufficient ‘very special circumstances’ in this case to outweigh the harm. (b) there would be unacceptable harm to visual amenity and landscape character of the area; particularly by virtue of dominance and impact on an important open area between heavy industrial areas. (c) insufficient information has been provided to satisfy the Council that the development avoids unacceptable impacts to wildlife interests, of international, national and local importance. (d) the development would adversely affect the setting of the Promontory Fort on Helsby Hill (Scheduled Ancient Monument) (e) the development is liable to result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity resulting from the noise levels exceeding criterion levels that the Local Planning Authority considers to be reasonable in the particular circumstances of this location and including potential impacts of low frequency noise
Page 497 (2) That the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change be requested to ensure that before any planning permission is granted adequate assessment of the potential risks arising from: (i) the proximity of the proposed development to the existing COMAH regulated sites (GrowHow UK Ltd, Ince and Ineos Chlor Vinyls, Runcorn) has been carried out and (ii) the development is capable of safeguarding public safety with respect to the safe operational requirements of Liverpool John Lennon Airport and Hawarden Airport.
Note : Councillors Andrew Dawson, Les Ford and Mark Ingram, each having previously declared a personal interest in this application, remained in the meeting during discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Mark Ingram left the meeting at the end of Agenda Item 4.
38 10/01834/WAS - DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT AT THE FORMER CHLORINE WORKS - RESUBMISSION OF 09/02047/WAS AT LAND AND BUILDINGS TO WEST SIDE OF LOSTOCK WORKS, GRIFFITHS ROAD, LOSTOCK GRALAM Agenda Item 5. The location of this application had been the subject of a site inspection on a previous occasion (16 June 2010) Minute No 3 refers.
Present at the meeting was Ann McEllin who spoke on behalf of Lostock Gralam Parish Council, Kenton Barker who spoke on behalf of Wincham Parish Council and Peter Wishart who spoke on behalf of the application as the applicant.
Councillor Malcolm Byram, with the leave of the Chairman, made a personal statement to the Committee. His dealings with recent representations that he had received unfortunately might have given the impression to a third party that he had pre-determined the application. As a consequence, he did not intend to participate in the determination of the application. He stood down from the Committee and joined the Visiting Members from where he made a statement on the application as a Ward Member before leaving the meeting.
The Chairman observed that the application was one proposal in connection with the Cheshire Waste Treatment Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract and asked the Head of Waste Management & Streetscene to explain the background and the latest situation.
The Head of Waste Management & Streetscene advised that, although the Government was not now going to award PFI credits, this did not mean that the project would not go ahead. Both CWAC and Cheshire East were reviewing their options and liaising with the Government and with Viridor who was CWAC’s Preferred Bidder. The report dealt with the planning merits of the application.
He advised that the plant was sized to deal with all of Cheshire’s waste, which was largely residual household waste and there was no intention of importing waste from outside the area. The plant was designed to pre-treat residual household waste to produce a fuel which would be sent to Runcorn by rail to the power station under construction where it would be used to generate heat and power.
Page 498 The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and explained the differences from the previous proposals. The capacity of the plant had been reduced from 250,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes and because of the volume of refuse reduction there was a drop in the number of vehicles required for transporting to and from the site to 59 each way per weekday, lower at weekends.
He drew Members attention to the Late Information Report that highlighted the revised position regarding Regional Spatial Strategy that was again part of the Development Plan. He also pointed out that the applicant was now willing to pay for the signalisation scheme at the Middlewich Road/Griffiths Road/Pennys Lane/ King Street junction.
One Visiting Member clarified the capacity of the plant which had been a reason for refusal previously. In his experience, the design of such plants was not precise. A 10% over-design would be expected to ensure that the desired capacity was met. Another visiting Member was concerned that the meeting had not been held in Northwich and that it appeared that Wincham and Lostock Parish Councils had not been consulted.
Five Visiting Members spoke raising the concerns of local residents:
• there was still an over-capacity of waste treatment in the area if all the waste plants that had permission were totalled - 350,000 tonnes. There was plenty of capacity elsewhere to deal with Cheshire’s waste. • the site was two miles from Northwich Town Centre but there were already proposals for an additional 600 houses at Rudheath and 1200 at Wincham and residents themselves had to be considered. • the DEFRA report indicted that the area already had adequate facilities. • the capacity had reduced by 50,000 tonnes but the building was the same size. • the stack was still 27m high. • the waste water had to be disposed of somewhere. • traffic needed to be reduced to 30mph not 40mph. • if recycling rates rose by the predicted 50% then there will be more capacity to bring waste in. • the cumulative effect of the impact of all the vehicular movements of the waste plants needed to be assessed. • evidence was required that Viridor had access to the railhead and that the fuel would be sent by rail. • double yellow lines were required on the A556 to Broken Cross junction and heavy goods vehicles needed to stop parking opposite garage. • as the size of the proposed plant had not reduced, taxpayers would be paying for a larger plant than was necessary. • the proposed capacity had been reduced by 20%, but the estimated traffic had not. 62 in and out had reduced to only 59 in and out – 3 was not a 20% reduction.
The Chairman asked why Lostock Gralam and Wincham Parish Councils had not been informed of this planning application. The Area Planning Manager advised that all the letters were sent out to the same recipients as the June application. The application was in the area of Northwich Town Council who had been
Page 499 consulted. The Chairman confirmed that it was his decision to consider the application in Chester.
Members debated the application. A Member observed that the site of the proposals had formerly been a chlorine plant which would have used HGVs and was the reason why Highways had not made any comments on this issue. Another Member questioned whether the enhanced offer for highways by the applicant was sufficient. The Principal Development Officer (H/ways) advised that the original offer was £150,000. The new offer was to carry out works that would cost in the region of £350,000 which was a significant improvement. Contributions for highways work could only be used for works directly relate to the application they were levied on. The reduction to only 59 vehicle movements in a day when the overall waste reduction was 20% was questioned. This had been raised with Viridor and 211,000 tonnes had been used for the Highways Assessment. The highway element of the previous planning application refusal was centred on the vehicles required to serve the over-capacity of the plant and it was considered that by removing the over-capacity the highway issue had also been addressed.
It was questioned whether all exports of solid recovered fuel would be by rail. It was confirmed that all fuel would be by rail but additional recyclate would be by road. The Chairman questioned whether Viridor could use the railhead as not all the land was owned by the company. It was confirmed that Viridor had agreements with all the other landowners. If permission was granted with a condition requiring fuel to be removed by rail, any inability to use the railway would be a breach of that condition. He confirmed that the applicant had a different rail company to move the waste and they had secured an agreement to use this track.
The Chairman asked what cumulative movement of traffic would mean the road was at full capacity. The Principal Development Officer (H/ways) advised that the traffic assessment listed the additional developments and the resulting estimated vehicle movements. 59 vehicle movements in and out were accounted for in the modelling exercise carried out. He observed that the A530 carried 12,000 vehicles per day and had a capacity for 15-16,000 vehicles. The Chairman noted that it was within CWAC’s own power as the Local Authority to lower the 40mph speed limit to 30mph following a speed limit review.
One Member noted that, following the previous refusal, the applicant had addressed all the Members’ concerns. The Councils had, by statute, to find a way of dealing with waste in Cheshire. The application was not for an incinerator but one that dealt with waste in an environmentally friendly manner. The application would be subject to a Section 106 planning obligation that would ensure that Cheshire’s waste would be treated and would limit the over-capacity.
The Area Planning Manager advised that there were many different types of processes and facilities to deal with the different waste streams. The Viridor process was an intermediate one. The treatment plant was described in paragraph 2.12 in the report and all odours would be removed form the air as part of the process. He noted that waste movements were not bound by administrative boundaries.
Members asked that, should permission be granted, an informative be added asking that local firms be given first consideration for the transport contracts. The
Page 500 suggestion of double yellow lines should be taken up with the CWAC Highways Department.
A proposal to approve the application was carried by 5 votes for to 5 against, with no abstentions, and with the Chairman exercising his casting vote in favour of approval.
DECIDED: That
this application be approved subject to:
(1) the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to ensure the development is only implemented to deal with the waste streams identified in the planning application.
(2) the conditions detailed on pages 11 and 12 of the Late Information Report.
An informative be included asking that local firms be given first consideration for the transport contracts.
Note : Councillors Malcolm Byram, having made his personal statement and having expressed his views as a Ward Member, and Les Ford having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application, separately left the meeting before discussion and voting took place.
39 APPEALS REPORT DECIDED: That
the information contained within the Appeals Report be accepted.
40 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 501 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 502 COMMUNITY SELECT PANEL 22 NOVEMBER 2010 (6.30 pm - 8.10 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor John Grimshaw (Chairman)
Councillors Bob Barton, Terry Birtwistle, Keith Board, Brian Crowe, Paul Donovan, Pamela Hall, Tony Sherlock (in place of Councillor Pam Booher), Andrew Needham, Scott Mealor and Keith Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Pam Booher and Linda Cooper
Officers in attendance: Gavin Butler − Community Safety Manager Sharon Griffiths − Democratic Services Team Penny Housley − Senior Manager-Overview and Scrutiny
24 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Name Item Interest Action
Councillor Bob Item 7 – Anti Personal Interest Took part in Barton Social by virtue of being consideration Behaviour the Chair of of the item Strategy Winsford Pupil Forum
25 DECLARATIONS OF THE PARTY WHIP There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
26 MINUTES AGREED: That
the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to minute number 19 being amended to read “pre-salting cost approximately £10,000 per 125,000 square metres..
27 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME/ OPEN SESSION There were no questions from the public.
28 CHILDREN KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED TASK GROUP The Panel considered the final report of the Task Group which examined the increase in figures for children killed or seriously injured during 2009. It was noted that no children had been killed during this period.
Page 503 It was noted that there appeared to be no pattern to the increased figures. The importance of road safety education for children was discussed. Concern was expressed over the apparent lack of co-ordination in Personal and Social Education (PSE) in schools. It was felt that this would be a suitable issue for scrutiny.
AGREED: that
1) an additional recommendation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be added to the Children Killed or Seriously Injured Scrutiny report requesting that a scrutiny review of how the Council and Partner Organisations can engage with schools in a co-ordinated way in relation to supporting Personal and Social Education, including safety messages and citizenship be carried out.
2) Subject to the inclusion of the additional recommendation, above, the Children Killed and Seriously Injured Scrutiny Report be approved and submitted to the Executive.
NOTE: Having previously declared a personal interest Councillor Bob Barton remained in the meeting and took part in the consideration of this item.
29 ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR STRATEGY - PROGRESS REPORT The Panel considered an updated report from the Crime and Anti Social Behaviour Manager.
Since the last meeting three Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) Units had been set up across the area and were operating out of three police stations. The units were a collaboration between Cheshire West and Chester Council and the Police. Other Partners such as social landlords were also heavily involved in the work of the units. The units were identifying and tackling issues based on victims, perpetrators and locations and resources and interventions were targeted accordingly.
The success of the review exercise methodology was discussed. It was felt that by getting partner organisations together to look at an answerable question positive exchanges of ideas had taken place. Building the exercise around a scenario, similar to an emergency planning exercise, had made the strategic discussions feel more ‘real’.
AGREED: That
1) the Panel endorsed the progress made on the anti social behaviour strategy following the review exercise held on 10 June 2010.
2) the review exercise methodology be used for the crime and disorder scrutiny review in 2011/2012 with the subject matter being either Domestic Violence or Repeat Offending.
Page 504 30 ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no other items of other business which the Chairman considered urgent.
31 WORK PLAN The Panel reviewed the work programme for the Community Select Panel for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2010/2011.
AGREED: that
The Panel endorsed the work programme for the remainder of the 2010/2011 Municipal Year.
Chairman
Date
Page 505 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 506 PLANNING BOARD B 23 NOVEMBER 2010 (4.10 pm - 4.40 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Storrar (Chairman)
Councillors Ralph Oultram (Deputy Chairman), Don Beckett, Paul Donovan, Barbara Roberts, Bob Thompson, Adrian Walmsley, Helen Weltman and Norman Wright
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Angela Claydon and Graham Smith
Reserve Members: Councillors Don Beckett (in place of Councillor Angela Claydon) and Norman Wright (in place of Councillor Graham Smith)
Visiting Members: Councillors Kate Birtwistle and Arthur Harada
Officers in Mark Lynch − Area Planning Manager (South attendance: & West) Brian Leonard − Acting Principal Planning Officer Daniel Dickinson − Senior Solicitor Paul Parry − Principal Development Officer (H/ways) Jane Binyon − Democratic Services Officer
44 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS Agenda Item No.5
10/01714/FUL – To construct two blocks of Extra-Care apartments with integral communal space and facilities, car parking and access roads, refuse and recycling storage and communal landscaped gardens and terracing at land to the north of The Oaks and The Pines, Sandbach Drive, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 8TZ
Councillor Helen Weltman declared a personal interest as she was a Ward Member.
45 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting of Planning Board B held on 28 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
46 PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE REFERRED TO STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE No applications were referred to the Strategic Planning Committee.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS Planning Board B considered the reports of the Head of Planning and Transport that made recommendations for approval and refusal of planning applications,
Page 507 together with the Late Information Report circulated at the meeting as the information contained therein was not available prior to the dispatch of the agenda.
The Late Information Report referred to Agenda Items 5 and 6 (Minute Nos. 47 and 48).
47 10/01714/FUL - TO CONSTRUCT TWO BLOCKS OF EXTRA-CARE APARTMENTS WITH INTEGRAL COMMUNAL SPACE AND FACILITIES, CAR PARKING AND ACCESS ROADS, REFUSE AND RECYCLING STORAGE AND COMMUNAL LANDSCAPED GARDENS AND TERRACING AT LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE OAKS AND THE PINES, SANDBACH DRIVE, NORTHWICH, CHESHIRE CW9 8TZ Agenda Item 5. This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier in the day.
The Area Planning Manager (South & West) reported on correspondence which had been received by the Chairman, earlier that day, and sent on behalf of residents of Wheelock Close, Sandbach Drive, Monarch Drive and Kingsmead Residents Association, Northwich, expressing concern about the content of the report to Board Members, and objecting to the application on a number of grounds.
The Area Planning Manager (South & West) considered that, although the majority of issues raised in the correspondence had been addressed in the report, the points made in respect of the ecological impact of the development, specifically the lack of information regarding the presence and safeguarding of protected species such as bats, otters and badgers, had not.
It was therefore recommended that consideration of the application be deferred to enable Officers to clarify this issue.
DECIDED: That
consideration of this application be deferred to the next meeting of Planning Board B to enable Officers to address the issue of the presence and safeguarding of protected species at the site.
48 10/10871/FUL - ERECTION OF A NEW TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING WITH LIVING ACCOMMODATION IN THE ATTIC SPACE AND DETACHED GARAGE AT LAND ADJACENT TO 51 EGGBRIDGE LANE, WAVERTON, CHESTER, CHESHIRE CH3 7PE This application had been the subject of a site inspection earlier that day.
The Area Planning Manager (South & West) reported that, since the publication of the Late Information Report, a further representation had been received by the Chairman, the contents of which he considered to have been addressed in the report and Late Information Report.
A Member expressed concern about the application in terms of its designation as infill development, which usually constituted a development filling a gap between two existing properties. Rather, this development would be sited in front of the building line of properties to the east and set back from the building line of those to the west. The same Member also expressed concern about the size of the
Page 508 proposed development, which he considered would change the local streetscene, where there had already been a lot of infill development.
A Member sought clarification regarding responsibility for the private sewer that crossed the site. The Area Planning Manager (South & West) responded that ensuring the provision of adequate drainage was a planning issue, but the drainage itself would be a Building Regulations matter. United Utilities had been consulted on the application in March 2010, but had not advised of any objections to the proposal. However, an informative or condition requiring the submission of drainage details could be added, should Members so wish.
A Member expressed concern that the proposed development might be too large for the plot.
A Member sought clarification of the designation of development as ‘infill’, with particular regard to the issue of the building line in relation to that of surrounding properties. The Area Planning Manager (South & West) explained the provisions of Policies HO4 and HO6 of the Chester District Local Plan in this respect, and advised that, whilst he accepted there was not a uniform building line in this case, he was satisfied that the application met the criteria for infill development. He also drew Members’ attention to the layout of the properties on the opposite side of Eggbridge Lane to the application site, where some properties were set back from the building line and others set forward of it, making it difficult to justify refusal of the application on the grounds that the siting of the proposed development was not in keeping with the surrounding building line.
A Member expressed concern that the siting of the proposed development, in front of the building line of some of the properties to the east in Eggbridge Lane, would have an adverse impact on the character of that row of properties.
A proposal to approve the application was lost by 4 votes for to 5 against.
A proposal to refuse the application was carried by 5 votes for to 4 against.
DECIDED: That this application be refused for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed development, by virtue of location and prominent siting forward of Nos. 41 and 43 Eggbridge Lane, would appear as an incongruous and obtrusive feature, out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area. As such, it would not constitute ‘in-fill’ development in accordance with policies HO4 and HO6 of the adopted Chester City Council Local Plan and would thereby fail to comply with the provisions of the development plan.
(2) The proposals, by virtue of the size of the dwelling house and garage, together with the size and form of the plot, would constitute a cramped form of development out of character with the existing development along this frontage and would be detrimental to the existing residential and visual amenities of the adjoining dwellings. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policies GE3, ENV2 and HO4 of the adopted Chester City Council Local Plan.
Page 509
49 APPEALS REPORT DECIDED: That
the information contained in the appeals report be accepted.
50 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.
Chairman
Date
Page 510 CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE 30 SEPTEMBER 2009 COMMITTEE (4.00 pm - 5.25 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Les Ford (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Mark Ingram, Alan McKie and Lynn Riley
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ralph Oultram
Co-opted Members: Peter Allen, Frank Birkenhead, John Nield and Mrs Gretta Cousins
Officers in attendance: Claire Keane − Castle Park Project Manager Chris Wilson − Democratic Services Officer Kevin Day − Project Design and Commissioning Manager
10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Andrew Dawson declared a personal interest to all matters relating to Castle Park as a Member of Frodsham Town Council.
11 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2009 be approved as a correct record, subject to it being recorded that: Mr Frank Birkenhead of Castle Park Arts Centre was appointed as a Co-opted Member of the Committee.
12 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND BID - UPDATE The Castle Park Project Manager gave the Committee a verbal update on the progress made to date on the Heritage Lottery Fund Project.
The conservatory was due to be completed week commencing 5 October 2009, but would remain closed to public access whilst the work was completed in the formal gardens. North Walk improvements to the footpath were largely completed, however the connection to the A56 and Fountain Lane were not. The work to Fountain Lane entrance would be completed at the end of the project, which ensured that there would be no further damage to the stone pillars from vehicle access. Work to the new A56 pedestrian entrance was imminent. The mesh grass protection on the events area was almost complete, and the electricity points would be installed next. The formal gardens had been cleared and paths lifted. The stone basins for the fountains had been cleaned, the fountains produced and the pipes were to be laid next. Demolition of the bowling pavilion was scheduled for week commencing 12 October 2009. Some delays had been experienced in the tennis court / MUGA construction, due to ecological issues and delays with Scottish Power’s underground electricity cabling.
Page 511 The Castle Park Project Board had considered a proposal made by Castle Park Arts Centre (CPAC) for catering at the end of July, however the reaction of the Project Board was that the proposal would not deliver the catering provision that the Trust was committed to. The Project Board had responded with a suggestion that in the absence of a business plan, the Project Board itself would investigate the possibility of joint / complimentary management of the facility in the arts centre and the pavilion. If the business delivering catering in the pavilion also offered a complimentary service in CPAC, this would offer benefits by removing the competition between the two cafés, enabling a flexible approach and responding to peaks and troughs in demand between the two spaces. The possibility of such shared provision had not yet been formally discussed with CPAC Trustees. A meeting had recently taken place with a social enterprise to discuss their potential to run the café, whilst delivering training. Research into potential social enterprises and businesses that could run the café was continuing. When the organisation to deliver catering in the pavilion had been identified, a meeting with CPAC would be arranged to discuss whether the delivery of joint facilities would be possible.
DECIDED: That
the report be noted.
13 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND - ADDITIONAL FUNDING The Committee was advised that there was presently a shortfall in match funding for the project. Whilst sources of funding would continue to be researched and applications submitted, as the charitable arm of Castle Park, the Trust was asked to make a contribution to the project.
The delivery of improvements to the park generated new opportunities for future income generation. Such income could contribute to the funding of the project.
DECIDED: That
(1) an amount of £40,000 be transferred from the expendable endowment fund to the project;
(2) Nick Smith, the Finance Officer be invited to the next meeting of the Committee to report on asset management; and
(3) a working party to include CPAC representatives be set up to look at income generation.
14 CYCLEWAYS IN FRODSHAM At the last meeting a feasibility study into the introduction of a cycle route from Frodsham to Helsby High School, due to the closure of Frodsham High School had been requested. Kevin Day, Project Design and Commissioning Manager, was present to report on the findings.
Many options and routes were available to use, however, those thought most practical had been included in the report. Any potential new route would need to be thought through and executed ensuring all aspects and issues of safety were fully reviewed.
Page 512 It was felt that this issue needed to be looked at in the wider context. There were approval and funding issues to be considered as well as the safety aspect, however, the report was seen as a useful start.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the brief be extended to cover the Helsby area; and
(3) the issue be raised at the area Community Forum and, if relevant, a Local Strategic Partnership Thematic Group.
15 WEDDINGS AT CASTLE PARK The Committee considered the report of the Project Manager which updated on the current use of Castle Park for weddings and the possible options for the future following the restoration of the conservatory.
At present weddings were held in the main room of the house, and drinks served afterwards in the one stop shop area, moving outside if the weather was good, and photographs were taken around the house and gardens. The newly restored conservatory could be used for small ceremonies, for photographs and drinks receptions or buffets. Outside the house, the events area would enable marquees to be erected in the park, with minimal effect on the lawns. Such marquees could be used to provide fully catered reception facilities. However the use of park buildings and open spaces for weddings would have an impact upon the public use of the park.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the profile of the Park as a venue for weddings be endorsed and promoted; and
(3) the Lifetime Services Manager, Regulatory Services, be approached for any appropriate advice.
16 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING. There were two items of business which the Chairman agreed to deal with in this part of the meeting.
1 Horse Riding in the Park
The Centre Manager reported that the footpaths through Castle Park did not have any formal designation that specifically allowed use by horse riders. Over the last few months horse riding in the park had been noted, and staff were uncertain of the legal situation and appropriate action to take. Most recently the North Walk had been improved to enable use for cycling, however, use of this route for horse riding would cause damage to the surface.
Page 513 The Committee was asked whether or not a route through the park should be identified to enable safe off-road equestrian access.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the park should not be permitted for equestrian use; and
(3) appropriate signage be put in place.
Note
The Chairman agreed to deal with this as an urgent item as the views of the Committee were needed before the next meeting.
2 Castle Park Arts Centre Refurbishment
It was reported that the refurbishment to the entrance and toilets of the Centre had been delayed due to the need for the drawings to be redone which had resulted in an additional fee being charged. It was now requested that the additional fee be waived.
DECIDED: That
Councillor Les Ford follow up this request and a response be sent direct to the Centre’s representatives.
Note
The Chairman agreed to deal with this as an urgent item as the question was raised after the agenda was produced and an urgent response was required.
Chairman
Date
Page 514 CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE 15 DECEMBER 2009 COMMITTEE (6.00 pm - 6.20 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Les Ford (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Mark Ingram, Alan McKie and Lynn Riley
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ralph Oultram
Co-opted Members: Peter Allen, Frank Birkenhead, Gretta Cousins
Officers in attendance: Claire Keane − Castle Park Project Manager Nick Smith − Principal Finance Adviser (Resources) Martin Thornhill − Environmental Projects Manager Chris Wilson − Democratic Services Officer
17 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interests made.
18 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2009 be approved as a correct record.
19 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND BID - UPDATE The Castle Park Project Manager gave the Committee a verbal update on the progress to date on the Heritage Lottery Fund Project.
A working group had not been set up since the last meeting, however, income generation was being considered in a number of areas. A meeting had taken place with a social enterprise that could potentially deliver the café in Castle Park and was being discussed by their trustees. This option had been considered against other income generation options.
There had also been a meeting with the Lifetime Services Manager to discuss weddings in Castle Park and how they could be developed and promoted to secure income for the Trust. It was suggested that a more proactive approach should be taken to promoting the house for other events such as naming ceremonies. The Committee asked that further options be investigated and reported to a future meeting.
The gardeners had been advised of the decision made at the last meeting of the Committee that the Park should not be permitted for equestrian use. Horse riders who visited the park would be redirected. Signage would be installed through the Heritage Lottery Fund Project next year, there was no need for additional signage in the interim.
Page 515 There had been a great deal of work to the path network, including the new path that crossed the edge of top field and the extended West Walk from behind the car park. This work had unfortunately resulted in disturbance to park visitors.
The formal gardens had been edged, services installed and soil ameliorated but they were too waterlogged for any further work on the gardens to be progressed. Most of the tree work had been completed. Work on the tennis courts was now progressing well following some initial delays.
There was a revised programme for the project, the forecast completion date was May 2010, with key dates as follows: • Sports pavilion completion w/c 08/02/10 • Park pavilion completion w/c 01/02/10 o External works to pavilion complete w/c 22/02/10 • Sports area construction w/c 11/01/10 • Play area completion w/c 15/03/10 These dates could be subject to change.
The first meeting of a Friends of Castle Park Group had been held. The meeting was attended by 15-20 people including some of the existing Friends, members of the clubs and some new faces. Cllr Cathy Lord gave a talk on her experiences with the Friends of Whitby Park, the meeting was then opened up for discussions on what the Group hoped to achieve.
At this point 15 young people joined the meeting to discuss the possibility of a skate plaza on the new leisure / PCT site. They addressed the Group clearly and explained their hopes and expectations. The Group were extremely keen to support the young people and agreed that there should be better facilities for young people in Frodsham.
The Group were due to meet in January, when three of the skaters would be present and who would give a presentation on the type of facility they hoped for. This would then be followed by a discussion to identify what support could be given by the Group to help raise awareness and funds.
The first meeting of the User Group had taken place on the 9 th December 2009. Representatives from all the sports clubs using the park were present. The second meeting would take place in March and would appoint office holders, agree fees and booking facilities.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be noted; and
(2) a timetable of dates of the meetings of all the associated Groups be brought to the next meeting.
20 CASTLE PARK TRUST - 2009/10 ACCOUNTS The Principal Financial Advisor updated the Committee on the financial position for the Trust as at 30 November 2009.
Page 516 There had been no exceptional expenditure or costs incurred to date. The returns for the year had been disappointing but were due mainly to low interest rates. Income level received from the rents for the units had been maintained but as there continued to be some vacancies, new tenants should be actively encouraged.
The Committee discussed the income and expenditure in relation to weddings at the house and requested that a report be produced before the next meeting.
DECIDED: That
(1) the report be noted; and
(2) a report on the income and expenditure in relation to weddings be produced and circulated.
21 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.
Chairman
Date
Page 517 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 518 CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE 17 MARCH 2010 COMMITTEE (4.00 pm - 6.00 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Les Ford (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Mark Ingram and Lynn Riley
Co-opted Members: Frank Birkenhead, David Dobson and Tony Hinkins
Officers in attendance: Claire Keane − Castle Park Project Manager Martin Thornhill − Senior Green Space Officer (Strategy) Chris Wilson − Democratic Services Officer
22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Andrew Dawson declared a personal interest to all matters relating to Castle Park as a Member of Frodsham Town Council.
23 MINUTES DECIDED: That subject to the removal of Cllr Ingram’s name from those present, the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2009 be approved as a correct record.
24 MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE The following changes to the membership of the Committee were reported: • Parish Councillor Tony Hinkins as the co-opted representative of Frodsham Town Council • Peter Allen as the co-opted representative of the Castle Park User Group • David Dobson to replace John Nield as the co-opted representative of the Friends of Castle Park • Peter Vickery to replace Frank Birkenhead as co-opted representative of Castle Park Arts Centre with effect from the next meeting • It was also noted that Cheshire Association of Local Councils no longer wished to be represented on the Committee.
DECIDED: That (1) the changes to the non-voting membership of the Committee be formally accepted; and
(2) the expression of thanks from Mr Birkenhead be noted.
25 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND BID - UPDATE The Castle Park Project Manager gave the Committee a verbal update on the progress made to date on the Heritage Lottery Fund Project.
The fountains in the formal garden were now almost complete and the stone work was to be cleaned again now that the fountains and pumps had been installed. Tarmac had been laid in the formal gardens in readiness for resin bound aggregate dressing, which would be a golden gravel tone. The first layers of tarmac had been
Page 519 applied at the tennis courts, fencing posts and light fittings had been installed. The final surface was to be laid and the courts would be playable by Easter. The older children’s play equipment at the edge of the top field was to be installed on this day and inspected as soon as possible. Works to the watercourse and Synagogue Well were nearing completion. There were some stone works that had been restricted by the weather, as lime mortar could not be used in cold temperatures, but which were now being progressed. The pedestrian access on to the A56 at the corner of the North Walk was about to be actioned, the team were waiting on the necessary highways approvals. The pavilions were scheduled for completion by the end of the month, however, the park pavilion was the priority, to enable the bowling season to start at Easter.
There had been regular meetings held of the new user group forum to keep the sports clubs up to date with progress, to collect booking and fees information to feed in to a wider review of these systems.
The new Friends of Castle Park had also met regularly, and had a strong youth contingent that were keen to support skate facilities at the leisure centre, with the support of the wider group membership.
The tender for the pavilion café catering contract had not yet been resolved. It had not been possible to make a joint appointment to both the pavilion and the Arts Centre. Alternatives were now to be pursued via the formal procurement route and it was hoped that an advert would be produced by the end of next week.
It was confirmed that although only one tennis court was available at present, all the courts would be completed and ready for use in three weeks time.
The Green Space Team were now located at Wyvern House, Winsford. Although they were no longer based in Castle Park, there would be a regular presence at the park to monitor progress. Any queries about the Project should be made to the Green Space Team and not to the Contractors. Contact numbers for the future were provided.
Wedding promotion had been progressed by the Lifetime Services team and a new publication included Castle Park as a potential venue.
DECIDED: That the report be noted.
26 FORWARD PLANNING DECIDED: That the item be deferred for discussion following the exclusion of the Press and Public.
27 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING There was no other business the Chairman considered urgent.
Page 520 28 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That The Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the Agenda, pursuant to Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
29 FORWARD PLANNING A preliminary discussion took place in relation to a draft report on the future needs of the Trust and the local community.
DECIDED: That (1) the report be circulated to the voting members of the Committee; and
(2) further work on the feasibility of the options identified to be commissioned.
Chairman
Date
Page 521 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 522 CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE 16 JUNE 2010 COMMITTEE (4.00 pm - 5.05 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Les Ford (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Mark Ingram, Alan McKie and Lynn Riley
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ralph Oultram
Co-opted Members: Peter Allen – Castle Park User Group David Dobson – Friends of Castle Park Tony Hinkins – Frodsham Town Council Peter Vickery – Castle Park Arts Centre
Officers in attendance: Richard Harrison − Project Manager Claire Keane − Castle Park Project Manager Nick Smith − Principal Finance Adviser (Resources) Martin Thornhill − Senior Green Space Officer (Strategy) Patrick Sebastian − Democratic Services Officer
1 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors Lynn Riley and Andrew Dawson declared personal interests to all matters relating to Castle Park as Members of Frodsham Town Council.
2 MINUTES It was brought to Members attention that meetings of the new user group forum had not met as regularly as suggested in Minute No. 25, and that the listing of Officers in attendance was incomplete. It was requested that the Officer attendees at the meeting held on 17 March be amended to include the following:
Denise Snelson – Greenspace Project Officer Julie Belliss – Senior Manager, Customer Services Mike Dix – Senior Manager, Leisure and Green Spaces Richard Harrison – Project Manager, Community and Environment Claire Latham – Adult Learning Manager
DECIDED: That
subject to the above amendments, the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
3 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN DECIDED: That
Councillor Les Ford be appointed as Chairman of the Committee.
Page 523 4 APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN DECIDED: That
Councillor Andrew Dawson be appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Committee.
5 CASTLE PARK TRUST 2009-10 OUTTURN The Executive Committee received the report of the Principal Financial Advisor that informed on the Castle Park Trust’s 2009/10 Draft Financial Outturn.
Members noted that the formal financial statements would be presented for approval to the September 2010 meeting of the Executive Committee.
DECIDED: That
The report be noted.
6 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND BID - UPDATE The Castle Park Project Manager presented a verbal update on the progress made to date on the Heritage Lottery Fund Project.
The Executive Committee was informed that works were progressing at a faster pace as a result of the contractor providing more work teams on the project, working to a completion date of mid July 2010.
Members were informed of the progress on specific areas of the project that included:
Play • The features for older children, funded through the Playbuilder programme had been installed and very well received. • The main play area was removed after the 23 June 2010 and there would be a period when this had closed before the other opened. Families were to be encouraged to use the play kit at the edge of the top field for the two weeks when this occurred. (Members noted that financial penalties would have been incurred if the Council were to be found responsible for further delays to the project).
Sports • The tennis courts and multi use games area were now in use. • The sports pavilion was complete and the formalising of agreements with the clubs on the hours of use were now taking place.
Park pavilion • The pavilion had been completed and handed over to the Council, though there were some external works outstanding. • A caterer had been appointed to run the café, who would also run this as a venue for training. The caterer was working to get the pavilion ready for opening in time for the festival weekend. • A meeting had taken place for the bowling club to express its views and understanding of the shared use of the pavilion. It was noted that until
Page 524 officially opened, not all details had been finalised and a number of concerns remained amongst club members.
Other • The formal gardens had been turfed and were scheduled for planting during the two weeks commencing 21 June 2010. • The tarmac paths in the formal gardens were to be dressed over the same period. • The main route from the park entrance through to the sports area would be resurfaced. • Works to the A56 pedestrian entrance had begun. • The last project item would be the removal of the contractor’s compound and works to the Howey Lane entrance.
Forthcoming Events • Rotary Festival in the Park 4 July 2010. • Boogie Nights concert in the Park 17 July 2010 tickets available via Age Concern Cheshire 01606 305000. • 6-8 August 2010. A series of activities were planned to attract a range of audiences, marking the formal opening of the Park following completion of the Heritage Lottery Project works.
DECIDED: That
the report be noted.
7 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING No urgent business.
Note: At the closure of the formal Committee meeting, Members and representatives of the Bowling Club undertook an informal site visit with officers to view the new facilities and see firsthand the matters causing concern to the Club.
Chairman
Date
Page 525 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 526 CASTLE PARK TRUST EXECUTIVE 22 SEPTEMBER 2010 COMMITTEE (4.00 pm - 6.00 pm)
PRESENT: Councillor Les Ford (Chairman)
Councillors Andrew Dawson, Alan McKie, Ralph Oultram and Lynn Riley
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mark Ingram
Co-opted Members Peter Allen − Castle Park User Group David Dobson − Friends of Castle Park Tony Hinkins − Frodsham Town Council Peter Vickery − Castle Park Arts Centre
Officers in attendance: Mike Dix − Senior Manager Leisure & Green Spaces Martin Thornhill − Senior Green Space Officer (Strategy) Denise Snelson − Green Space Project Officer Ian Lifford − Area Manager Streetscene Julie Bellis − Senior Manager, Customer Services Deborah Ridgeley − Democratic Services Officer
8 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors Lynn Riley and Andrew Dawson declared personal interests to all matters relating to Castle Park as Members of Frodsham Town Council.
9 MINUTES DECIDED: That
the minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2009 be approved as a correct record.
10 HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND BID - UPDATE The Senior Green Spaces Manager provided Members with an update on how work had progressed since the last meeting.
The younger children’s play area had been completed and was well used, although there had been some criticism by local residents about the noise levels. This was currently being monitored, and if found to be unreasonably high then mitigation measures would be taken if required. Unfortunately, there had been some incidents of anti-social behaviour, and the Community Safety Wardens had confirmed they would include the Park in their rounds to monitor this.
With the older children’s play area, an inspection from RoSPA was expected prior to its formal opening. There had been an accident on the zip-wire, where the seat had become detached from the chain and damage had been caused to the user’s back. Independent advice was being sought as to how to pursue claims against this. The equipment had been tested and approved for use. The manufacturers
Page 527 had been contacted and representatives had attended a meeting on site with officers from the Play Development Team. Communications with the manufacturer were ongoing, but it was thought that the bolt used to connect the chain to the seat was not made of the correct metal. This had been sent to a metallurgist for examination. It was confirmed that the maximum load had not been exceeded at the time of the accident.
It was reported that the shutters on the café were not operating properly and the awning requested by the Bowling Club had been priced and how this would be funded was being examined.
It was confirmed that the planting should be completed by the end of the week, with other grounds work completed by 1 st October. Some work was still outstanding, including the pedestrian/vehicular access, gate at Howey Lane and various surfacing works. The main car park would then be cleared completely of all work vehicles, and the overspill car park would also be available for use. At the main entrance, the grass had been damaged by vehicles and it was suggested that Heritage Lottery funding be used to install bollards at the entrance to prevent vehicles from parking on the grass.
The Chairman requested a financial statement when the works had been completed.
The Chairman then opened the meeting for general questions concerning the HLF.
• Additional set of keys required for the Pavillion • Floodlights need to be operating to enable longer use of the Park • Spare septic tank had now been removed.
DECIDED: That The update be noted.
11 WEDDINGS AT CASTLE PARK Members were provided with a suggested outline for the provision of a wedding service. It was described as a “no fuss” wedding, and would be the provision of the building and its surroundings. The hirer would retain the responsibility of booking all the additional features, such as caterers, photographers, florists, officials and cars. The suggestion, tabled by Tony Hinkins, Frodsham Town Council, was discussed and the possibility of extending the service would be looked into by a Working Group which had recently been set up. The Working Group would examine all ideas about using the office space in the ground floor of Castle Park House, and area that could be used by other services within Cheshire West and Chester Council. The management of the space would also require discussion, and the Head of Facilities Management and the Head of Regeneration would be involved in the Working Group and examine the possibility of the promotion of Economic Development or a sub-regional hub.
The Senior Manager, Customer Services, referred to reports that Castle Park had stopped taking bookings for weddings, which was not the case. Provisional bookings were still being taken, and interested parties were still being shown around the premises. No confirmations had been issued as she was aware of the item being discussed at the Trust’s meeting and was awaiting a direction as to how
Page 528 the building was to be used. It was reported that bookings should be confirmed and new bookings could be taken up until the end of the financial year. It was hoped that the Working Group would be able to provide a direction in early 2011.
Members were reminded of the need to establish a sustainable revenue position for the Park, with a future income stream to protect the building.
A request to change the colours of the radiators was made, from the existing gold to a colour more in-keeping with the décor as the radiators had to be covered over for each wedding.
DECIDED: That
The wedding service be discussed at the Working Group, with a report back to the Castle Park Trust Executive Committee.
12 OCCUPANCY OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF CASTLE PARK HOUSE Members were reminded of the Working Group, which had been established to examine the possible future uses of the ground floor at Castle Park House. There had been an initial discussion with Frodsham Town Council about their possible re- location to the ground floor, but this would need further discussion. The Chairman then referred to the original Service Level Agreements, which would require amendments following the completion of all the works currently under way. It was important that Cheshire West and Chester Council’s interest in the House and park was retained.
It was suggested that the discussions held by the Working Group be reported back to this Committee.
DECIDED: That
The update be noted.
13 CASTLE PARK TREE ASSESSMENT The Area Manager Streetscene, referred to the tree assessment recently carried out in Castle Park. A detailed report was tabled, which set out the risk assessment for the four main beech trees, which had been assessed to establish a “Risk of Harm”. The brief of the survey was to establish the risk posed by the trees in relation to potential targets, which could include people, property or vehicles.
The process for establishing the risk of harm was set out in the report, and a risk index was applied for each of the four trees. An ariel photograph of the Park was provided in the report, and Members were advised that the beech tree located near the railway line to the north and Chester Road to the east (identified as T4 in the report) was at most of risk of falling and causing harm, and it was recommended that this tree be cut back immediately, which it had been and it was found to be in a severe state of decay. Part of the trunk would be retained and used as a decorative feature.
The report strongly suggested that the other three trees should also be felled, and it was recommended that this occur within two months. Members expressed their concern at the loss of the trees, which had been a long standing feature of the
Page 529 Park and residents would have “grown up” playing under the trees for many years. The gap in the tree canopy was discussed, and Members were informed that it was envisaged that replacement trees would be planted, in a close location to the trees being removed. A staged approach to the felling of the trees was discussed, with pruning carried out instead of immediate felling.
It was reported that purely pruning the remaining three trees would only delay their removal, and severe pruning would only remove the branches, new growth would not occur. The displacement of wildlife was also discussed, and this would require further investigation before the trees were removed, and it was confirmed that specialist advice would be sought as the authority would have responsibilities if protected species were residing in the trees. A further assessment of the risk rating would be required following significant and appropriate pruning.
Members suggested that the local schools could get involved with the new planting and perhaps “adopt a tree”, which would involve the pupils and provide the Park with publicity. A planned programme of planting and removal was requested, and the Senior Green Spaces Strategy Officer would lead on the arrangements for publicity and the explanation of why the removal was needed in a short space of time.
DECIDED: That
The Assessment be noted and Officers take the necessary action to plan for the removal of the affected trees over a 2 to 3 year period, following significant and appropriate pruning, and replanting of trees in the Park, and co-ordinate the publicity for the work with local schools and Members.
14 "ENCHANTED PARK" EVENT AND FUNDING The Greenspace Project Officer submitted a report concerning the proposal to host a series of ticketed events called “Enchanted Park”, during National Tree Week. Members were informed that there was allocated funding to be claimed under the “Audience Development Plan” element of the “HLF Parks for People Strategy Stage 2 Submission”.
If the events planned are successful, they could be rolled out to other parks during the winter months and could become annual events across the Borough. The Enchanted Park theme aims to take the audience on a magical evening journey through the park as visitors have never seen it before. Working with local businesses, community groups, local schools and artists, the park would be transformed into a light spectacular with projection art, promenade artists, atmospheric lighting of the trees and water features as well as trees “dressed” for the occasion.
This year, it was suggested that the theme would be the fairytale “Hansel and Gretel”, and visitors would follow a trail through the woodland to find the tales cottage made of sweets and cakes. Castle Park House would become the cottage for the event.
It was proposed to hold the event over three evenings, on 26, 27 and 28 November 2010 to compliment the Frodsham Christmas Festival.
Page 530 Members were advised that it could be possible to apply for £10,000 funding under Arts Council England to engage artists for the event, and with the assistance of officers, Castle Park Trust would be in an ideal position to apply.
DECIDED: That
(1) The report be noted; and
(2) The Enchanted Park 2010 event at Castle Park be supported, and an application for £10,000 funding from Arts Council England be made by Castle Park Trust.
15 ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT THAT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING The Chairman opened the meeting for those present to raise any urgent business.
The Senior Manager, Customer Services, raised three items of urgent business
(i) Back access door – this was open at all times but staff had experienced problems with unauthorised use of the premises because of this. It was requested that an intercom and camera be installed so that access could still be maintained but the security of staff improved. This was agreed to be forwarded to the Facilities Team (ii) ICT Survey of Castle Park House – this was being undertaken with a view to connecting the House to the Cheshire West and Chester’s high speed network, with faster broadband links (iii) The Love Frodsham Website required updating as most of the links were not in use and the information was out of date. It was suggested that the name be maintained and it be brought up to date with robust links to other sites.
DECIDED: That the urgent business be noted.
16 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC DECIDED: That
The press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item, pursuant to Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.
17 CASTLE PARK WEDDING IN AUGUST - FEEDBACK The Chairman agreed to consider one item of urgent business on the grounds that the item was not available at the time the agenda was published.
The Chairman referred to an email which had been sent to Members concerning a wedding held in August at Castle Park. A number of issues had been raised in the email, many of which had been resolved before the wedding had taken place.
Page 531 The main issues of concern were described as follows:-
• The Conservatory – ability to open the roof lights and pole operated windows • The six low level brackets close to the doors in the Conservatory • Screening off the play area from the Conservatory • Proximity of the play area • Noise, disturbance and temporary fencing around the play area • Provision of a sound system • Co-operation of the contractor, council staff and state of preparation of the park • Failure to remove paper posters from prominent position and the bins
Despite taking the booking in fairly short notice, officers confirmed that the hirer had been made aware of the construction of the new play area and its proximity to the Conservatory, and that the licence for weddings in the House was for the ground floor room, which had a maximum capacity which had been exceeded. All the comments expressed by the resident would be considered by the Working Group, which had been set up to examine usage of the House and the Park.
The Chairman confirmed that he would write to the resident, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Castle Park Trust Executive Committee.
DECIDED: That
The email be noted and the Chairman contact the resident with regards to the issues raised.
Chairman
Date
Page 532