Transcript

and open the meeting so to everybody here this afternoon this great afternoon welcome today to today's meeting of Cheshire East Council's Economy and Growth Committee and we're in the committee suite at Westfield in Stambach my name is Councillor Nick Mannion and I'll be chairing the meeting this afternoon the meeting is being audio webcast and also a recording will be uploaded to the council's website as soon as possible after the meeting can I remind everybody to use the microphone when speaking speak clearly and only speak when invited to do so this will enable people who are listening in on the meeting today or to the subsequent broadcast to follow the meeting more easily I would like to take this opportunity as well to welcome Councillor Buchanan and Councillor Colm who are joining the committee and this is your first formal meeting of the economy and growth committee so item one on the today's agenda is are there any apologies for absence yes chair we've got apologies from Councillor Michael Gorman, Councillor Connor Naismith Councillor Fiona Wilson and Councillor David Brown we have three substitute members Councillor David Edwards, Councillor Jill Rhodes and Councillor Sarah Bennett-Wake. Thank you for those members who have volunteered to act as substitutes for this afternoon's meeting okay moving on declarations of interest under item two I now formally ask are there any disclosable pecuniary interest other registrable interest and non registrable interest on any item on today's agenda with regard to members of the committee. I will open the matter by declaring in the interest of openness and a member of the crew town board as the Cheshire East elected member nominee and a reminder that the crew town board is an advisory board to the economy growth committee which acts as the accountable body. Are there any other declarations of interest? Councillor Rhodes. Okay now we move on to item three on this afternoon's agenda the minutes of our previous meeting that took place on the 12th of March this year and those minutes can be found on pages 5 to 12 of the agenda pack. Does any member who was credited at our meeting who is here this afternoon have any issues of accuracy with the minutes? No that's reassuring. I therefore propose that the minutes be approved as a correct record. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Marshall. All those in favour? Any against? Any abstentions? Thank you. We're now moving to item four first substantive item on today's agenda public speaking. I have three people registered to speak this afternoon. I've got Mr. James Melling, Mr. Simon Brown and Mr. Simon Caporn. Is that the correct pronunciation? Or is it Caporn? Apologies. Okay I want to invite Mr. Melling to come forward as the owner in technical terms of the St. Danes Moss petition and to explain your petition to the committee. What I have done, I've asked that the header page of the petition is printed off and all members of the committee have got a copy in front of them. Mr. Melling you've got three minutes and I'll give you like a 15 second reminder if you need to wind up. Okay in your own time. So I'm James Melling, I'm the campaign manager for the Jesuit Wildlife Trust. So the Jesuit Wildlife Trust has warned the council about the Danes Moss development for over 10 years. When you read through our responses it paints a picture that this scheme has been an environmental failure from the start. In 2014 we objected because this scheme did not have an environmental statement. In 2015 we flagged a lack of ecological surveys in that there was no biodiversity compensation strategy. In 2017 we objected in the strongest possible terms flagging that the council had a duty to review this application as it failed to meet local and national planning policies. The environmental statement contained a number of inaccuracies and there was a failure to do the correct surveys. We told the strategy planning board in 2017 this was the most environmentally damaging scheme ever proposed in the Cheshire East. We told you that the destruction of biodiversity and stored carbon at this scale had been unprecedented in recent decades. Councils are the apologists if you agree with us. In 2012 we objected against the unprecedented loss of biodiversity and highlighted that the application still failed to assess the adverse impact it affected at least, something that really should have been done at the outline of the climate variation stage. When you start to look at the chain of failures side by side the council must acknowledge that this scheme had never gone properly. The development site was designated as Dane's Lottery Knoll at the local wildlife site expense events 2. The local wildlife site system captures all spaces that are cornerstones of our natural world and are not covered by satisfactory designations. They are not disposable. Do you know how much was first offered to compensate for the loss of the local wildlife site? 220,000 pounds. That's apparently the value that was assigned to one of the most nature rich spaces in our county. Through our interventions we got the figure to 900,000 pounds. While that might sound like a win by our estimation the true value of this isolation was about 2.5 million. In today's terms that will be about 5 million now. Dane's Lottery Knoll is particularly significant because it's home to willow tit. It's the most threatened bird in the UK and it thrives in wet weather but rarely travels far from its habitat. So when you destroy its habitat you risk the localised extinction of the species. Do you know how much we dwelled on a plan to compensate for the loss of the habitat of one of the most threatened species? 15 bird boxes. Someone thought that 15 bird boxes would be enough to disable red listed species. I'm sure you're also aware of the damaging implications of building up heat for the climate. Since this planning application came forward the government has published an English opinion action plan. The plan warns that our peanuts are susceptible to development. It makes it clear that the loss of peanut was and should be avoided and even degrade the peanuts available for restoration. Since the interest of this committee is financial I would ask where there is this value for money to the council to simultaneously restore one peanut whilst destroying another. In fact the one hectare of peanut being destroyed at pastures would be significantly flawed by the 54 hectares of peanuts set to be destroyed at Dane's Moss. I understand there are financial pressures on the council to accept the development but let's be honest this is not going to fix the funding crisis facing local governments and we really just find destroying an irreplaceable habitat for such a short term financial gain. We therefore call from the council to scrap the development and remove Dane's Moss from the north of the local plan so I leave the petition in your hands. Thank you very much. Thank you James. Simon Brown do you wish to come speak? Unfortunately you only get two minutes and again I'll give you a warning when you're getting towards the end. Thank you chair. I'm Simon Brown, I'm part of the Safe Dane's Moss group. I'm here representing today. I'm also a parish councilor in Pembroke but this is representing Safe Dane's Moss. As James just mentioned it's a fantastic site. It's irreplaceable habitat of a very large area and we genuinely mean irreplaceable. Here's that definition. That can't just be mitigated against by relocating what's on the site and there's a lot of very special wildlife there. Over a thousand species have now been reported and over 60 that are actually protected under NERC section 41. So it has a huge environmental benefit and I think there have been misconceptions about that in the past. There have been ecological benefit etc. It is completely bold. It's a huge site for wildlife locally and Macclesfield is very lucky to be on this course. So from the community point of view it's proven to be becoming more and more useful. More and more schools have been visiting Ash Grove, the local primary school which is only two minutes walk away. All the classes from Ash Grove are going to be having nature study on the Dane's Moss development area over the next few weeks. So it's fantastic for the community. There's a wildlife event, Dawn Quarris' moth cracking event, 170 moths in one evening. It's a very special site. That's an indication of really how diverse it is. So from a value point of view, obviously we might be looking at from the point of view of cost to date on putting this forward, potential development costs or the value of land that it could be developed. But we are also looking at the value to the local community and going through the government's green book strategy. And it's into the tens of millions that this is work for the community. It's protected as a green site. So we really believe that it doesn't stack up in housing numbers any more. The 950 houses, let's be honest, are not needed. Macclesfield is meeting its numbers very happily, even on the local plan. So it's not needed. And we agree with very much part of the position that the site should be removed from the local plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. And let's share with a number of these leaflets, which have our vision for the site. So this is what we're proposing in terms of restoration and we're very happy if you could have a look. We've got a very positive vision. I didn't distribute them before these speakers because I wanted them to listen to the speakers rather than look at their input. But they will get, there is one for each member of the committee. Thank you very much. And our third speaker today, Sami. Sami, you've got two minutes. Thank you. I am the Emeritus Professor in Ecology and Environment at Manchester Metropolitan University. I live in Macclesfield. I spent the past 30 years teaching and researching on treatments. As a scientist, I believe any plans for buildings on and around Daynes-Mossard are very ill-conceived and odds with policy direction and local and national government towards zero carbon and towards nature recovery. Development would bring destruction to the peatland, its deep carbon stores and rich wildlife habitat, and also threaten the triple inside nature reserve adjoining due to potential impairment with its hydrology and chemistry in water. Drainage and drying out of peat increases carbon emissions, but damaged peatlands can be restored. The Daynes-Moss vision, posed by safe Daynes-Mossard and Cheshire-Buckers is an alternative housing problem that benefits conservation of the carbon reserves, the wetland habitat and people's well-being. Peatlands can be redirected to careful management of water levels. This will improve carbon balance quite quickly and re-establish peatbok vegetation and move the ecosystem towards being a net carbon sink. Indeed, successful restoration is very clear on the triple assignment to reserve next door. You should explore the potential income streams that support peatland restoration. The environment and land management scheme now offers premium payment rates for re-wetting peatland soils. The IECN Peatland Code enables peatland projects to market the climate benefits of restoration. Profitable wetland farming, otherwise known as polluting culture is another possibility. Thank you very much. As I say, I didn't want to hand them out during the speakers, I wanted people to listen to what you were saying rather than look at the leaflet. What I'm going to do now, I'm going to ask Mr Scates to speak on this issue before we move on. Thank you Chair. I think from committee's point of view we were happy to receive this petition. However, the petition itself and the actions of which don't sit with this committee, so I think the member and public speakers will have a future opportunity to meet the representations, make a presentation of the petition to Strategic Planning Board, the same where the actions sit, but the committee, you as Chair are happy to receive this petition. And for the benefit of those outside the room, I formally read into the record that I've received the petition from the Save Dames Moss group and this will now be taken forward in due course. Thank you very much. I am not proposing to take any statements, comments, observations or proposals from members of the committee at this point in time on this matter, but I think it's inevitable that as the council has a significant landowner at the site that this matter will at some point in time be on our agenda to future meeting. Thank you. I'll now move on. Thank you very much. And I thank everybody who came today to speak on this safe journey home, bashing across the M6 which apparently is not very good at the moment. Okay. Cheers. You're welcome to remain if you want. You can stay for as long as you wish. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to item five on the agenda, which starts on page 13 and it's the final outcome for the last municipal year 2023-24. And I'll ask Mr. Scates and Mr. Redding to present the report. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. I think if Steve Redding could lead me in the introduction to the report, please. Thanks, Peter. So yeah, this is the first of two important papers on the committee agenda today, covering the final out position of 23-24 financial year. It's important to note that given the time of committee meetings, this has been reported in advance of a full outcome, which is going to final subcommittees later on this month. The 25th review report includes a short cover document followed by a detailed appendix, which covers the out term, some explanations and sets out the grants register, debt levels, capital programme and reserves for the economy committee. Turning to page 18, there's some detailed narrative and figures related to the committee. So pulling out some important figures from there, really overall, the place director is reporting on the spending of £3.6 million at the out term position. And that's set against a £94 million budget. That's an improvement of £3.7 million since the third financial review, which is mainly a result of things like using reserves, being awarded additional income levels and continuing to hold vacancies. Turning to economy and growth specifically, there's another spendback of £4.5 million against the net budget of £24.8 million. And that's an improvement of £1.6 million from third financial review. We're saying the budget originally approved in February 23, MTS was 200k higher in the out term budget and the key reason for change there is the reallocation from the MTS items across place. So a technical adjustment being made there but not material in this budget. And then to look at some of the key reasons, asset service, lots of activities take place in all areas to try and reduce spend levels. So asset service, some temporary mitigations, and a one-off business rate of £208k, stopping all non-essential spend, that's £57k benefit, holding vacancies, which is a £30k benefit, and overachieving to income budgets of £82k. And the report goes on, it covers facilities management, £1.7 million spend there, which includes lower spend on electricity and gas, and that's £0.8 million. And then reduce some of the business rates due to prior year appeals, and that's something of £1.2 million. So substantial figures there, plus economic development service and housing, who again are substantial savings from vacancy management, travel, supplies and services, and use of grants. So overall, you know, a positive position for the service. Recommendations, so the committee is asked to consider the factors leading to a positive financial downturn of £4.3 million against the budget of £24.2 million, and to scrutinise the contents of Appendix 1 and note that any financial mitigation decisions requiring approval will be made in line with the relevant delegations. So thank you. Anything you want to add, Mr Gage? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just really to emphasise to members the headline figures in terms of the significant underspend within the place directorate and within the control of this committee, the underspend of £4.5 million. You know, there's significant restriction on our spending throughout the year. We have quite a large amount of vacancies which we are managing in order to achieve that budget shortfall. So it's a positive outlet for this committee, but we can be on this committee to the directorate and then to the council. We want to continue to be a positive benefit to the complete financial position of the council as an organisation. Happy to take questions along with one thing. Yeah, any questions? Councillor O'Leary, Chris? Thank you, Chair. I have some questions. First of all, on page four of the appendix, the £62,000 consultancy announced why that wasn't recharged. On page five, the £1 million overspend on responsive maintenance. Can I get some more detail on that? Was that a single item for the spend or was it a number of different smaller? I think that's particularly significant given that reactive repairs are always more expensive and the patent. Can I also ask... Can we just take those two then? I'd like to come back with the others. So for the rest of us, we don't lose that then. So, Mr Redding, the states? I can take those questions. Thank you, Councillor O'Leary, and thanks for highlighting the questions in advance as well. In terms of the consultancy work, it is our intention that we are employing any expert advice which doesn't exist within the organisation, within our teams, that we do try and recover that cost for a capital budget. Sometimes that's not possible because the particular piece of advice we need isn't subject to a capital programme. We do at times employ expert advice, particularly around valuation, and that can lead to a capital receipt which is benefited with that valuation, so we get some value return on that expenditure. But there are other projects which need some detail and expert evidence, et cetera. A good example is we spent some advice and got some advice around some property title work around common to market quarter, and that in essence unlocked the opportunity for that development to come forward, which has been a success since its opening last year. So we use it strategically and tactically, and we use it only when it's required. A second question was around responsive maintenance. At the start of the year, we carried out an amount of forecasting for the likely expenditure in a reactive sense during the year. Throughout this year, we have been a victim of a high inflation rate, so our initial forecast rate has been exceeded by inflationary measures of 14.8 per cent was our calculation. So there's nothing specific, nothing individual. It's just a decreased cost during the year. I agree with your comment that planned maintenance is better than responsive maintenance. We have to make a judgment call as to the level of balance between those two decisions. And you've got a couple more questions, I believe. Two more. Yeah, that's fine. The first is relating to, on page five, the re-charge of £350,000 to the UKSPF. Can I just get confirmation that this is not using grant funding to fund the existing services? And then the final question, on page 11, there's an increase in debts of over six months. Could we get some explanation? Thank you, Chair. I think Charles, if you recall from the last committee, Charles is the lead on the UKSPF and I think he can answer your first question. Okay, Mr Jarvis. Yeah, thank you, Councillor. I can confirm it's not substituted for current service activity. There is a 4 per cent top slice of all UK shared responsibility that's allowed to basically manage the programme, which is, that 4 per cent is significantly higher than £350,000. That pays for a new programme manager which is a new role that we've brought in to deliver that activity. So we've seen a programme also based within such as the independent appraisal that all the projects went through and very heavily worked around that. The meeting process hasn't set up. So it's always elegant and then we've brought in additional staff to manage and oversee some activities that the business have been working on, working with businesses and working through the grant process. And Councillor Ewing, second point. Yeah, and Councillor Ewing's second question is regarding increasing the debt provision, which is over six months old. We have found, certainly since the pandemic, where a lot of our tenants now have been in some difficulties, we've really focused on trying to manage debts and debt recovery. The reason why the figure is as within the financial information is we are looking at some complicated leasing arrangements, et cetera. So we're trying to be as proactive and looking to recover those debts as quickly as possible. But sometimes, depending on the nature of the tenant or it could be an absentee tenant, et cetera, they are quite difficult to recover and we have to take a longer term view. The balance between the cost of legal action and the cost of providing a longer period of time for recovery of our debt is all managed within our estate scheme. So we deal with it proactively, but it is all subject to a heaven flow during the period of the year. Any more questions? Councillor Clowes. Thank you. Yes, I've got some questions from the grants and capital areas. First of all, on page 23, there's a reference to natural living stewardship, particularly around Tatton. I just wondered if you could provide a little bit more detail around that, particularly in the case of Tatton. And then on page 26 and 27, we've got details of the decarbonisation funding allocation. So on page 26, there are four elements there, which in total come to around £9 billion. And then on page 30, it looks as if there are corrections in the budget. I'm not quite sure where they fit in with that. So if you could provide some clarity on that, bear in mind that all the decarbonisation money, as far as I understand, has come from government and our successful applications for funding. It's useful to know where we're up to with that spend. And whether any is being carried over to the current school year. And then the final question is on page 28. And again, it's related to the shared prosperity fund. But this is the rural aspects. And again, I'm not quite sure whether we've had sufficient oversight of projects within that rural element. So some detail about that would be okay, let's pick up the first one. Maybe Carol would you be positioned to respond on the Tatton side? If not, we can provide friends to the close with her written answer on that. Yeah, I'm sorry, it's 23. But the actual appendix. That's what then you can answer today. Right. So on that page, the appendix is the liberal answer. Stewardship skin. And so it's countryside stewardship grant, given to both Tatton Park and countryside management for 10 years. So it's something that we have every year that we have certain requirements to deliver through the stewardship scheme. It'd be helpful if you could, it would be helpful to me if you could circulate what the next way is to what the stewardship scheme is to the committee after the meeting. Yeah, I think that it certainly helped me as well. Okay, thank you. In terms of public sector decarbonisation funds, we have benefited from a considerable amount of government funding, which we've applied for and being successful in allocation. We've also in certain areas had to match that with our own funding. We certainly applied it to buildings such as Delamere and Macclesfield properties, also across the schools. So within page 26, and you know, identifying the structure of those payments within the capital programme. And I think your subsequent question was on page 29. Sorry, page 30. I think that's just environments from different budgets. And I don't know whether Steve can add to that, but were money potentially for a match has been in a particular fund within the council have been invited to particular project funding, particularly schools is described here. So just the transfer of money from an internal account to another internal account. That's correct. Yes, pages 29 and 30, some of those technical tendencies, which set out any segmentaries or violence that's only facing violence, being moving funds between the capital schemes. So I just had a question. So that might in fact be part of our contributions moving from one part of the council to another part of our contributions to move deparvalisation. If it's a way of identifying the match funding, if that's relevant to that particular grant funding criteria. And what did I say? Yes, rural shared prosperity fund. Yes, so I am in charge of overseeing visual funds, so I can certainly provide you with a bit of response to the schemes that we provide for moving forward and going forward this year as well. If I might ask the rest of the panelists first? Yes, no problem. Okay, thank you very much. Any more questions on effectively appendix one to this report, is it? Councillor Haynes? After all those, mine's quite a simple question. How long are we planning on holding these vacancies and how long is it sustainable to hold vacancies? Thank you, Councillor Healy. And you know, in briefings we've discussed this, and I think I've highlighted that, you know, the amount of vacancies across the place directly, you know, is in that sort of 12 to 16 percent sort of bracket. In economy and growth, a lot of those savings have been generated by vacancies. It's not sustainable in the median term, it's a short-term reaction to the financial position. I would hope that with the work that's being done by our transformation partner that, you know, we can identify a route forward in terms of structuring and that will enable capacity to be brought back into the department. Just to add to that, again, it's to carry the volume of vacancies in the teams that are currently there and still successfully bid for external funding and then deliver on that funding is a testament to the hard work of a lot of people at various levels of the council. But Mr. Scate said that one word, that's key to this, sustainable. Over the long term, it's not sustainable. And again, I would have thought the transformation programme which we've just been barking upon will have some due consideration of the challenges and prospects going forward. So I'll just like to put on record my personal thanks, and this is a look back to '23, '24, to all the hard works and various parts of the place directorate who have delivered despite the fact they've been taking the field at least one, possibly two plays short on occasions, to use the rugby and football analogy. But thank you very much. Okay, unless there's any more questions in relation to appendix one, I'd like to move to the recommendations. And they're on page 14 in the box at the top. The first recommendation is fairly straightforward. It's to effectively receive the fact that this committee managed to make savings, which obviously a proportion of those helped other departments, if that's the right word, and other parts of the place directorate. And the second one, and again, we've had a series of questions, probing questions, in relation to some of the numbers and statements in appendix one. I'm happy to propose we accept those recommendations. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Cloudes. Unless there's anybody in amendments, I propose to move to the vote. All those in favour of the recommendations as printed. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Any against? Any abstention? We've got an abstention. Thank you very much. That's carried. Okay, moving on to the next item on our agenda this afternoon. That's item six, starting on page 33. And this is a look forward, that's a great one, to this year's service budget for 2024-25 holidays. There is an error in the printed agenda. The table on page 37, as it's circulated, there is an error. I think the columns have been transposed. The corrected table is on the desk in front of us when we got here this afternoon. So, and again, I've asked Mr Redding and Mr Scates to introduce this item. Thanks, Chair. So, yes, second key financial report today, the allocation of service budgets for 2024-25. A slightly longer report this time. I suppose two key issues here, really, in terms of allocated service budgets and some other items, and also providing a sort of risk assessment and commentary on the approved MTFS items for 2024-25 financial year. So, I mean, just to pick out some bits in the report here, it sets out the allocation of approved budgets for 2024-25's economy and growth committee. As we know, the medium-term financial strategy report, the MTFS, the Cheshire's Council, was approved by full council in the 27th of February 2024, and service committees have been allocated budgets in line with the approved MTFS. The financial reporting cycle would provide regular updates on progress on delivery of the budget change items, the forecast outcomes position, progress on capital schemes, movement on reserves, and the details of any supplementary estimates and violence. And key messages in there about 2024-25 financial year, it's essential with the proposal delivered in the floor, and some notice of an influential pressure space in the council in 2024-25. And that applies to both the revenue position and the capital programme position, where the board can do to review the position for each one. The detailed appendix starts at page 425, and that covers a number of sections, allocation of budgets, risk assessments, the capital programme, EMR reserves, and then there's also an appendix B, which sets out the detailed reporting time table, and that's at page 55. Looking at the risk assessment, that's covered each of the MTFS items in some details, and there's a couple of red items on the list to do with restructuring, the office of state, nationalisation, a number of amber items, and quite a number of green items in there, or completed items, so they're provided in detail, and that schedule will be updated throughout the year. Recommendations, page 34, to note the decision to allocate the budgets to the committee, to note the financial reporting time table, and to review progress on the delivery of the MTFS policy change items. Thank you. So those red items on page 48 of their lines 49 and 51, the two. Mr Scates, anything you want to add? Thank you, Chair. Just to, obviously this looks forward, this is the first opportunity we've had the ability to present members with our view and our outlook on the MTFS and how we are progressing. This will change over the period of the year. We've identified two red items, one item is around service restructures. That is due to a high cost of a saving that was identified to all of the place directorates, and just for clarification, this is a figure which is reflective of all the responsibility for a place. It sits within this committee, because it was deemed, it's one committee out of the three service committees that are in place, and because economy and growth would have more of our financial outlook, it was deemed that this would be the relevant committee that it could sit under. So for clarification, that's highways and transport and environment and communities, as well as economy and growth. As well as economy and growth and other aspects of some of the ASDVs that currently sit under place. Thank you. So it has to sit within one service committee and we've identified. So in the MTFS of 22/23, a figure over two years of two million pounds was identified as a saving for all of the directorates. Last year, you will see from the final out turn that we achieved one million pounds of that in a year. About 600,000 of that was permanent savings and a further 400,000 was savings in year, again aligned to the vacancy management that we referred to in the previous report. So it's red because this remains our biggest challenge during the year. We need to look at our vacancies in the short term, expressing that it is not sustainable in the medium term. It's certainly in the short term, it is an available saving. But we are also looking at the transformation programme to provide some direction to enable the entire directorate to carry out a restructure that will generate those savings. So that's the aim. We haven't got any tangible savings identified against that at this time. We will look at other aspects across the directorate which could compensate in the air for any lower savings that are going to be generated. And item 51 on office rationalisation, members have a report on today's agenda. It's red because that was a decision that has to be made. There is a decision made today that could move to an Amber decision. So it's just reflective of the position and the decision-making process. So Chair, we're happy to hear questions. Any questions? Fast forward to Chris. Thank you, Chair. I just want to first of all confirm that the corrected table is exactly the same as the reserve strategy table on page 447 of the medium term financial strategy that was agreed in February by Council. That's my first question. My second question is about the South Macclesill Development Area. There's just over £11 million in the capital programme for this year for building on Danes Moss. Is that likely to get spent? And what are the consequences for any slippage? And then on budget item 65, which is the £3.19 million growth item for utility bills, I think you just already mentioned this. Can we just get confirmation that the recent reduction in utility costs, is that going to affect that budget? And is there some savings to be had there? And then finally, this is I guess the big question. In terms of savings yet to be identified, obviously in the budget overall there's some £30 million of savings yet to be identified and that's already implemented. Are there any for us as a community? And if so, will those require member approval and when will that be happening? Are you in a position to answer the first question? Yes, to confirm the MTFS approved in February page 448. I think it is. That's just the table or some room. Okay, I'm going to pick up the others. Thank you, Chair. May if I get these wrong, Councillor O'Leary. First question regarding SMDA in the capital programme. I think we would need to review that during the year. Should a strategic planning board consider the application? Then I think we would reflect on that decision and be able to update that. Any slippage would fall into the following years. There are financial benefits from slipping, borrowing costs, et cetera. We would review that once a decision is made in planning. Second question with regard to utility costs. So the £3.119 million, I think that's within, it's an item of growth. And as you suggest, we have seen a reduction in the cost of utilities electricity and gas during the year. That figure of £3.19 is not just solely energy costs. It does include an element for maintenance and business rates. There is also some nationalisation savings in there. Its growth target was estimated last year. I would hope that still positive direction in terms of the cost of utilities, that there may be some opportunity for savings in that. We will monitor it during the year. And it may be that some of, if there are any savings generated, that could go to alleviate some of the other pressures within the department. It's potentially possible, but in this world, there are unknowns that come around the corner. So at this year, at the start of the financial year doing our forecasting, that's our view. If we see that change during the year and we become more confident of savings, then we'll be able to report that to committee and enlighten you further. Yes, chair. It's just about any savings that, any saving line in the budgets where the savings weren't identified and where they might require a member of approval. When will they be coming forward to committee? In terms of any sort of savings, if we're not hitting the targets on the red items and we're coming across with new alternatives, then there will be a process which, I think, colleagues in finance and section 151 officer will be discussing with finance subcommittee. I imagine that will come forward over the next months and future committees about how the whole engagement process and consultation process will happen in terms of existing changes and future changes in the NTFS. So I think that's something probably that will come forward through finance subcommittee. That's my assumption at this time. Okay. Councillor Clowes. Thank you. First of all, can I just say a big thank you because back in February, January, February, when I had to go to every single service committee and present the Conservative group proposals for the budget, one of the things I asked at every single meeting was that there needed to be a better system for committee members to understand how we would be delivering the NTFS budget lines in each committee so that we could, first of all, offer better scrutiny and basically hold officers to account if we were not delivering those important budget lines in a timely way. So I see the rank rating element here and there was one on children and families yesterday as a real indication of accepting that on board and for us to be able to look at these meetings to come and check and to actually see something green already is very exciting. There's lots of room. There's lots of room. Well, there is on this one. Not on all committees, I can tell you now. So the questions that I have actually are in relation to, first of all, how are we going to better communicate across committees? So, for example, I don't want to talk about five to ten of them because I don't want to venture into two elements, but we know that when we are talking about, for example, some of those things that are in red, that these span more than one committee. And certainly children and families, there is an element of understanding about how that connectivity takes place, but it wasn't by any means across the board. So, for example, there wasn't an understanding of how one particular project might impact on high levels of transport or indeed how it might impact on adults and social care and, in fact, it does. So we still have work to do there and I just wondered if there were any mechanisms in place now that we are starting to get our drag racing to provide that cross-committee, cross-pollination view so that we don't build into our systems in one committee decision-making that might actually impact them to do another. So that's the first one. And then in terms of the, I'm just aware that, you know, there is something happening on the 4th of July and hot dogs, popcorn, burgers. Oh, that's the thing. But we need to be, again, cognizant of change that is happening, whatever the result. And so I just wondered what sort of work are we doing with our local government agencies against the background of that transformation plan that we're doing, against the peer review plan that we will have to do. That's all got to be in by the end of August. So I'm just wondering what work are we doing, because it's very pertinent to economy and growth, to make sure that we are ready to hit the ground running and that we have a number of opportunities or are thinking about opportunities going forward. I'll leave it there. I don't want to go into too much detail, but I think you know what I mean. And there should be processes already underway. And I just want assurance that that is the case, that we are thinking ahead. We are the rise of scaling. Thank you, Chair. I'll take the first one in terms of cross committee, cross directorate. First of all, thank you very much for the comments around the design of the papers and endeavours to try and keep committee up to speed with what is a very complex and fluid approach to financial management. I think a good example, you mentioned the reds within economy and growth. And the first one is not just economy and growth, it's how it's in transport and environment and communities. And, you know, I think the briefings we've discussed, ensuring that members of those committees are aware that something sits outside of their committees in economy and growth, but has a relevance to those committees. And I've followed that through Councilor Clowes. We are working closely with our partners, our colleagues in children's and adults. But we are ensuring through all of our projects that we do engage colleagues early. We do understand what the key consequences and implications of decisions are, not just on place, but on children and adults. You know, how place and place shaping and place making can actually reduce the burden in the future and currently on adults and children. So those conversations are happening. We are continuing to strive to improve that. The transformation programme, which hopefully will assist that, but also we've got different management boards set up in a minute to ensure that there is a dialogue happening right across each of the directorates at different levels. So the assurance is that's what we're endeavouring to do and we will continue to do that. In terms of future horizon scanning with the outcome of the general election, place and economy and growth are putting fully into the transformation programme and discussions with the transformation partner and that would form, as you say, representations to government. So they're the ones that are having the conversations with DLOC and government representatives, but we are fully integrated and playing into that whole conversation. We're looking at what options can be taken forward. So that's a piece of ongoing work at the minute. It hasn't been concluded, but we're fully engaged in that. So hopefully that will reduce the outcomes that you would be able to see as well. So I appreciate what you're saying and that's encouraging, but there are, if you like, non-partisan external bodies that are providing real insight and provision from a local government perspective. So you've got the LGA, you've got the CCM, those sorts of organisations irrespective of who is in charge on the 5th of July, where we have fed into that in quite an active way. So how are we taking that on board as well? We shouldn't forget what's outside as well as what we need to do inside. Just to summarise, the budget monitoring process is starting earlier, starting now, not at the end of the first quarter yet, but also the budget preparation process for the coming year is going to start earlier. And one thing that all the parties seem to have been silent on is how local government is funded. So hopefully when we see the manifestos published in the next few days, next week I think most of them getting published, will know what plans, proposals they have for the funding of local government. And indeed, it'll be interesting to see what they come up with regarding the funding for adult social care and especially acute issue is for SEND. So it'll be interesting, I think the lawkeeper and I and that, but Janet's right, the County Council's Network and the LGA are non-partisan. I think that's the label, that's the appropriate label. And there's a recognition that those elements have mentioned need to be reformed to a great extent. So I'm sure our offices are scanning that horizon quite sleeplessly. Okay, the Council's best story, be very patient. Thank you, I just wanted the reassurance that we can reassess section 51 in part two if it's relevant. Yeah. Okay, any more questions on that? Okay, well we've got recommendations set out in the box on page 34. I don't propose to read through them, there are three of them. And I'm happy to, I've not got anybody coming forward with any amendments. I'm happy to propose those recommendations on block. Do I have a seconder? Councilman Cannon. Does anyone want to speak on them or are we happy to go straight to the vote? I'm looking at the body of language around the room. Let's go straight to the vote. All those in favour of those recommendations. I'm not making any decisions, I just want to see if it's ten. Is Councilor Lughi handed? Yeah, he's put his hand up. Sorry, we couldn't see your hand. Eleven, yes. Any against? One against. Okay, thank you very much. Moving on now to item seven, it starts on page 59 and it's just two towns from grant budget. It's a budget reallocation and reports on pages 59 to 70. Just for those who are substitutes to the committee and are new to the committee, as I mentioned during my declaration of interest, Chesapeake Council through the Economy and Growth Committee are the accountable body for the towns fund allocation for crew. So that's why it's coming to this committee for a formal decision. Peter Skates, Charles Jarvis and Jez Goodman, are you going to introduce Jez? Thank you, Chair. This report provides details that would pose variation to the use of council and grants, which is a government grant of 22.9 million pounds awarded in 2021 to support a range of regeneration projects and crew. This funding is managed through an arrangement between crew town board, the council as the accountable body and the government's department and government housing communities. And as a council body for the towns fund and the town board, the council section 151 is required to approve any change request to government. However, as the grant payments are part of the council's medium-term financial strategy, any reallocation of grant between projects in the towns fund program requires a committee decision. At its meeting on the 3rd of May, the town board considered information related to the performance of projects, including their expenditure forecasts. Council officers provided information of paying for each project and the level of options. The town board took the decision recommended in this report, that is A, to reduce the towns fund grant allocation through repurposing our high streets project by the minimum amount required, which is around £3,000 to £17,000 and B, to distribute the minimum amount of additional towns fund grant required for other projects to ensure the delivery and the quantity of outputs required by government. Taking this approach, firstly minimises the reduction of the budget and outputs associated with repurposing our high streets. It also secures the youth zone project at Oak Street, subject to their co-funding strategy and the underwriting being sufficient for the other partner, and also meets the current forecast budget requirements for the Cockay Park and Jubilee project. So that's a summary of the report. I'd like to take any questions. Okay. Anybody, any questions for the officers on the report? Councillor Cloudes and Councillor Agnew. This isn't the first time we've had to redo the towns fund in terms of responding to different financial criteria coming forward. And we are talking about a government grant for this purpose that is being reaged within the constraints of the guidelines and those projects. However, I do have some great concerns about the youth zone project. I always have them. It was not a model that we, we looked at it closely back in the day and that we rejected it because of our various concerns about its sustainability over time. But we are where we are and we are a long way advanced in this project. But I'm concerned that already they are coming to us with a request for more money because of unanticipated rises in costs. Now that perhaps is not unexpected in the current context that we're all living in. And whilst I accept that this is a reasonable and rational way of sorting it out and that the other projects within the towns fund are not going to be significantly hindered by it. And in fact, the Jubilee Park site, you know, I think is incredibly important. It may only be a pocket park, but it's really important to improve. But in terms of moving forward with this, two excuses. In terms of taking this forward, I just want it on record that this council cannot be responsible for any future expansion in costs that this project rises, raises in a capital context. Yeah, we can just about jig it now, but they cannot come back to the table and ask for more money at a later date. Just on that point, what we saw is can you offer Councillor Bowers and the rest of the committee on that? A similar conversation was had at the council meeting in fact, regarding the fact that they couldn't rely upon a towns fund or the council to plug any future funding gap. And actually Jarvis was requested to write to onsite youth zones to express that sentiment, which has been done, has been received and acknowledged. So it's clear as we can possibly make it, we have made it clear that we are not going to be in a position to plug any future funding gap, if any emerges. That said, we are at a stage now, they are at a stage now in terms of their design and development, where they're looking to proceed with the construction of the project. The main risk is leading up to that point to a point in the contract going forward. They should have fixed tender prices, so there should be relatively low risk of any inflation or increase in budget being required for you to be able to. Thanks for that. That's really so interesting. Any more questions? Councillor Rachel, sorry, you did it. Thank you, Chair. I'm also a doctor of concern about this. If I understand this right, and maybe I don't, but we are relying on a sponsor to fund part of this project. Is that correct? So the project is being delivered by Onsite Youth Zones, which is a charity. So they in turn raise funding from a multiple range of sources, including in this particular one group from the government of the student government. So the majority of the funding is given from another government source. They also secure funding, mainly revenue from charitable donations targeting donations from what they call high net worth individuals. So that campaign is ongoing. They have already secured at least one and a half million pounds, which I think is a bit of a delay already. And they continue to explore other options to make sure that they are their model that is viable going forward. My understanding of all their projects that exist, which is running at least into double figures now across the country, that they are still operational and are successful in raising funding from those resources. Any questions? Do you want to come back, Councillor Stroud? Yes, I was trying to process that. So we're relying on a charity to pay for a fund to ensure that the council doesn't have any additional liability on this site. Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that if they don't get the additional funding, the site will close and our liability will end? So breaking this down into the construction and the operation of construction, which is where my involvement is mainly in terms of use of the town's fund grant as it's a regeneration fund. So we have confidence now that they have all the funding in place subject to this committee decision to proceed with the project because they've secured sufficient funding and underwrite things to proceed. In terms of the ongoing operational cost of it, the council has got a £400,000 random revenue contribution identified in the MTFS for the first three years post-construction of the operation. That's in the children's budget from the families, so it's a different part of the ecosystem of the council. And that is in place for three years, but it is an expectation that there is funding raised from other sources. But it is a, I think it's fair to say that the committee considered this at the time and the council concluded when it made the entry into the MTFS, that that was a M model, it was tried and tested, and all three of us committed to that contribution at that time. Going forward, obviously, it is reliant upon them raising funds, but I think in the case of most projects, there's always an expectation that the funds need to be raised. It's not going to be an income-generating project in terms of income it can take from young people who are attending the facility. So can I just clarify, so are you saying that the final liability listing rests with the council? No. So if the funding doesn't carry on, we will not have any additional liability? No, obviously the council could decide to do that, but my understanding is that if they were successful in securing sufficient funding to operate, they would basically have to downscale their operations or take other mitigating factors. I think we're getting onto speculation now. As I say, we've sought and received reassurances and the partner we're working with has got a proven track record of raising this kind of sums involved. These issues were, I wouldn't say kicked about, but were discussed robustly at the crew town hall and they were reassured and confident that the repro filing was sustainable. I'll take Councillor Rose. Did you want to come back? I'll let Councillor Rose go first because she's not spoken yet. Councillor Rose. Yeah, I just wanted, I know that we're concentrating on the week though because that is the reason this paper is completed, but there are other projects who also are going to rely on charitable donations to be able to run their project on a day-to-day basis, but use those not on the week and rely on charitable donations. That's all I'd say. Thank you for that contribution. Councillor Cloudes, do you want to come back on something? Yes, so I appreciate that you're focusing very much on the capital costs and getting the project off the ground, but I do think we need to be cognisant of the fact that the next three years the children's department are having to budget £400,000 a year for this project, which is a not inconsiderable amount of money. Is there then an opportunity under this model, and it's not something I've thought about until you mentioned it, that if their sponsorship search is highly successful, that maybe they don't need that money from the Pressuries Council going forward? That's a possibility, but I wouldn't like to speculate. I haven't really been part of those discussions around how that will be over £400,000 was the right amount. Okay, very pertinent questions. Some quite firm reassurances have been received on the record this afternoon. The recommendations are set out on page 60. I'm happy to propose those as they stand. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Rose. Does anybody want to speak on the specific recommendations, or can I move this to the vote? There's no show of hands, so I will move to the vote. It's proposed in second is. All those in favour of the recommendations on page 60? One, two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three, four, five, six. Any against? Any abstentions? One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, that's clearly carried. Thank you very much. I know we've been going for over an hour, but I'll take a break at the end of the next item, which is how to make the work programme, which is on 71 to 74 of our agenda this afternoon. Mr Scates. Nothing further to add really, the work programme has defined, so I'll have a few questions on it. I'd just like to add to my comment earlier, which may preclude you being required to ask your question in that obviously using the model of how we've dealt with the Hanforth Garden Village with regard to the SMDA matter. Obviously, once we are aware of what the outcome of the various planning issues is, then as a significant landholder on the site, that will come back to us. But again, the planning process has to be determined first. So whilst I can provide resources from the chair that it will be on our work programme, and it will come back to this committee, it's not possible to give it a fixed time date slot at this point in time. Councillor Leary. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Chair, you kind of stole my mind. I thought of that. It wasn't on purpose. I just wanted to get it in. What I would say, though, is that planning is the result of a strategy that this committee says about how it uses the council's land in the public interest. So although I appreciate that you want to get the planning out of the way first, actually, we did agree as a committee to receive a report on all of the options that would be available to us and the financial consequences of those options, which may, should we make a decision based on that, then change the planning strategies. I would just point that out. I've got some questions about the first financial review and about the... Can we just take the first one, then? Yeah, sure. Again, it's what comes first, the horse or the cart. Mr Scates. I think, Chair, I would like to do further to a planning decision, and this is the model we did use on Garden Village, is to bring a paper, which is a comprehensive paper of detail to this committee, so all the facts that result from the planning decision are in place in front of committee. There are multiple aspects to be considered, and I would like members to have all the facts before any decision is made. Moving on to... You had a second point you wish to raise, Councillor. Thank you. It's in terms of the first financial review, which the committee is not looking at until September, which would mean if there is any overspend that requires corrective action, the committee only has six months to do that. I just wonder why this committee meeting is in June and not in July, and if it had been in July, it could have received the first quarter review in July and would have had two months longer to take direct action. I just wanted to clarify a point that you made earlier, Chair, about the development of next year's NTMS. Could you suggest that, in fact, this year is going to be at an earlier point, and the work programme as it's currently on this agenda would suggest it is not, because it looks like it's starting in November, and I just wanted to clarify that. That timetable will not be set by this committee. This committee will participate in that timetable. There's been a clear desire to start the budget-setting process at an earliest possible stage. Now, the mechanics of how that's done and delivered is not for this committee, and we're bound by the decision. Now, whether that's the corporate policy committee or financial committee, I don't know. I would have thought it would have been corporate policy committee. Adrian, is that something that you can comment on at this stage or not? Or Steve? Or is it for another day? As a safest, we want to start the budget-setting process as early as possible. The mechanics of it are still being worked out. I think, as well, we need to incorporate into that the transformation programme, because that's a major factor. It's the reasonable points you make, and you're pushing an open door. Mr Skates, do you want to add anything to that? Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Leary. I think it would be something that the corporate policy committee would consider. I am aware that we are trying to identify the roadmap, the timetable, et cetera, for that engagement. In addressing your first question, I'm not too sure the FR1 position would be available in early January, so it would be in January that it's likely to fall with us. So having a July committee is a problem and we're not going to resolve that. We would need to see the FR1 and analyse it at that time. So all of the comments that you're raising in terms of early engagement are all being discussed by officers, so it is the intention as Chair is the advice to try and engage sooner and deal with some of those questions and solutions at the earliest opportunity rather than last minute in terms of previous. Mr Leslie, do you want to comment? Yes, Chair, thank you, responding to Councillor's inquiry. I don't have anything to add to anything you've said or Mr Scates has said, but just to mention, due to family emergency, I'm having to step out at 3.30pm, but Julie Gregory is going to cover for me and she might have, if you want to check with her then, more to add. I really don't think there's anything more to be said at this time, Chair. Go on then. I hope everything's okay. Right, that's the issue of the work programme. Sorry, Janet. Yeah, I just really wanted to pick up on that because I would have asked those questions myself, but I have to say that, and this is just for observation, under a cabinet system we have a quarter one with these in July, so I still don't quite understand why we still can't have either a committee meeting in July, and I'm thinking about this for next year, because obviously we've set the calendar now, but that also doesn't stop us from having informal meetings to discuss this, particularly as we will want to be able to respond to whatever the transformation programme brings forward at a very exacted pace, and we know that there are going to be significant budget challenges there, and I am concerned that, bearing in mind that I didn't know what was on the MTFS for the February council meeting until, in some cases, until three weeks before, and I was having to go to all the committee meetings to find out because committee members didn't know either, so we do need to get better at this, so I don't know what conversations you're having within the group, but it's got to be better than it was last year, and this work table, and I said exactly the same at children and families yesterday, this does not reflect an improved situation, so please do go away and come up with some innovative ideas, even if that means I'm sure we would all be happy to come to a teams meeting in one formal way to look at these things at as early a stage as possible. Comments I've made at more than one financial committee meeting are echoed by what Councillor McLeod has just said, and we need to deliver it, because another thing that I constantly ask the question is, yes it's alright to know whether on budget or off budget, and why, but the most important question we as elected members want to know is what has been done to put it back on track, but yeah, and I think the points are well made. Any final comments on that? Sorry, thank you chair. Noted and I will feed that back to Councillor Clowes. My finance colleagues will probably advise you that I'm desperate to know what FR1 is, or what FR0.5 is, because I want to know where we are, because I want to try and do that forecasting as early as possible, and I recall back in January when we all sat in this room in workshop form, I found that really, really beneficial for myself in having some discussions about what ideas and what innovative approaches could be, so I'd like to do something similar with this committee. I think early as possible opportunity. I'll certainly share that with the chair. Now there is another small matter in relation to the work programme before I ask us to dispose of this item, is we're required to schedule at least one of our meetings during the municipal year is a twilight meeting. Looking at the dates for the rest of the year, we've got September, November, January, March as the current formal set piece meeting of this year, so in conversation with the chair, who can't be here today, I'd like to propose from the chair that we, because we don't want to be all arriving at meetings in the dark, never mind going home, that the September meeting commences at four o'clock rather than two o'clock. I'll take a sense of the meeting and I know some of you are substitutes here today and some of you are new, but are we happy to invite officers to schedule the September meeting to commence at four o'clock rather than two o'clock? To satisfy that requirement under the council's constitution? Yes, of course. If the purpose of having a twilight meeting was to enable those who work from time to attend, how does it spur that aim? Would it not be better to start this meeting at six o'clock if that's what its intention is? What if I want to have a meeting at six o'clock as I go to parish councils? I'm used to doing so, or even later. So, I'm just thinking, what's the objective and if it's that, then that's awfully impressive. I think one of the reasons that I've heard in other committees that four o'clock has been highlighted on is for those members who have caring responsibilities, it's less difficult at that time than it is from six o'clock onwards. I've got no dying of dicks preference whether it's four o'clock or six o'clock, but we do need to make a decision today to allow to organise. So, I'm proposing from the chair it's four o'clock, which apparently is fairly consistent with other committees? Some are starting at six, some are starting at four. It's no whip tissue. Councillor Redstone's pointed out one of the disadvantages of four o'clock. I've heard what some of the disadvantages are with a six o'clock start. It's on the house. Councillor, what kind of? Personally, I think there are advantages and disadvantages whether it's four o'clock or six o'clock depending upon your own personal circumstances. So, you know, I think we've just got to make a decision as to which one we're going to go for. Okay, should we take a straight vote on it, for four or for six? For me, the critical issue is also where is it going to be. Is it a Macclesfield? It's going to add an hour and a half both sides to my meeting. I think most of our meetings are here, aren't they? Is the September one here? I don't know whether it's going to be here. It's here in September. It may not be in this building. I don't know. I can't give you an answer to that. So, I'll ask for a show of hands. All those who prefer it to start at four o'clock in September, please put your hand up. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Those who would prefer it to start at six o'clock, can I see your show of hands? Those who are not bothered will never abstain. Right, I first passed the post result at four o'clock, so thank you very much. So, that disposes of item eight. Now, shall we have a short break now or do you want us to move into part two? Okay. Sorry, item nine is the exclusion of the press report. The exclusion of the press and public. I have to read verbatim this statement. The committee has been asked to resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the next item pursuant to section 100A4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph three of part one of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and the public interest would not be served in publishing the information. Therefore, I propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the next item pursuant to section 100A4 of the Local Government Act 1972. Is that seconded? Councillor Buchanan, all those in favour? Any against? Any abstentions? Thank you very much. We are now moving to part two but we'll have a five minute break, five minute comfort break. Thank you.