Let's Talk Budget

£0

• The Council has a legal responsibility to protect the public health of residents through clean streets and neighbourhoods. 
• A 30% reduction in expenditure could mean that we could not meet our responsibilities.

£0

• A 20% reduction in expenditure would require the Council to target specific areas for cleaning only.
• By targeting support there would be a reduction in the frequency of services provided across the borough, and there would be increased litter in local parks and neighbourhoods.
• This reduction would increase waiting times for fly-tipping to be removed.
• Neighbourhoods would receive between 3-4 cuts per year for grass mowing
• A removal of 600 bins across the borough.
• Play areas in parks would be available only.
• Impact on volunteers’ days including action and impact days in parks and open spaces.

£0

• A 10% reduction in expenditure would require the Council to seek efficiencies in how we currently deliver the service, including significant reduction to staffing, changes to routes, reduced frequency of grass cutting, up to 14 weeks for mowing, risk-based street sweeping, the removal of up to 300 litter bins and litter collection would all be reduced, which would mean town centres and shops as a priority only.
• A number of play areas would need to be closed, with play areas in parks as a priority.

£0

• At this level of investment, services would remain the same across the Borough
• Obstacle grass mowing would not take place, around benches, bollards and fence lines.
• One full treatment would take place for weed spraying for the whole borough with spot spraying taking place in targeted areas.

£0

• A 5% increase in expenditure would support the Council to target street cleaning more effectively on areas with known issues, improving the cleanliness and appearance of some local areas.
• Destination parks and recreational facilities would be cleaner and better maintained. 
• This increase would expand the number of wildflower and managed long grass sites across the borough.
• This increase would boost the number of impact days to combat fly-tipping and litter.

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would support the Council to invest in park and greenspace maintenance across the borough.
• Grass would be cut more frequently and obstacles mown.
• Weeds would be better managed
• Hedges would be better maintained.
• This increase would enable increased enforcement and awareness campaigns to combat fly-tipping and graffiti issues
• This increase would increase frequency of litter collection and public bins being emptied.
• This increase would support the Council to hire additional staff to conduct additional street cleaning, and fly tipping removal this would make sure that the borough would be clean and well-maintained.
• Increase in cemetery maintenance and bedding displays in our cemeteries.
• This would increase improvements in sports pitches maintenance across the Borough.

£0

• This reduction of 30% in expenditure would result in widespread closures for libraries and museums, with communities having to travel further for services
• This reduction could result in a withdrawal of the mobile library service.
• This reduction could result in the removal of all funding to the voluntary and community arts sector. 
• We are at risk of not providing our statutory obligations for libraries and archives.
• This would result in the withdrawal of all events organised by the Council, and a reduction in the number of third-party events that can take place.
• Reduction in hours is not possible in the markets due to the lease agreements with permanent traders.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 20% would result in closures of local libraries and museums, with communities having to travel further for services.
• This would reduce the range of services provided by culture and archives.
• There would be a further reduction in the level of support provided to voluntary and community sector arts groups. 
• The Council would have to consider increasing the cost of charged for services and introducing charging for some services.
• We are at risk of not providing our statutory obligations for libraries and archives.
• This would result in the withdrawal of all events organised by the Council, and a further reduction in the level of service for events organised by third parties.
• Reduction in hours is not possible in the markets due to the lease agreements with permanent traders.

£0

• A reduction at this level would require further reorganising of the services into fewer buildings.
• This reduction would further reduce the opening hours of local libraries, archives, markets and museums. 
• Reduction in hours is not possible in the markets due to the lease agreements with permanent Traders.
• This would result in further reduced support to voluntary and community sector arts groups.
• This would result in a reduction in the number of events organised by the Council, and a reduction in the level of service for events organised by third parties.

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there will be no change in the structure of this service.

£0

• A 5% increase in investment would allow Cheshire West and Chester to invest more into our local events, museums, libraries, markets. culture and archives. 
• There would be a greater  range of provision and programming across services.

£0

• A 10% increase in investment would allow Cheshire West and Chester to invest more into our local events, libraries, museums, markets, culture and archives.
• The Council would be able to extend some opening hours of these services.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 30% would require reducing our community safety services to a minimal level that would make it extremely difficult for the Council to meet its legal responsibilities.
• The Council would be unable to provide effective community safety services; this would result in further reductions to the level of CCTV monitoring with live monitoring reduced considerably or possibly even the closure of the CCTV control room and potential rises in anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder across the borough. 
• We would be falling significantly below the national minimum standard required for these essential statutory services with the result that the risk to the safety of residents, workers and visitors would increase and central government and monitoring agencies such as the Food Standards Agency may decide to intervene.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 20% would result in a further reduction of community safety officers/wardens and a reduction in community safety standards and measures to reduce anti-social behaviour.
• It would also require the Council to reduce the level of CCTV monitoring in the borough. 
• It would require the Council to reduce environmental health and trading standards services significantly, including food inspections food hygiene, housing standards, product safety and fair trading, and would lead to increased charges for some services.
• We would be falling below the national minimum standard required for these essential statutory services with the result that the risk to the safety of residents, workers and visitors would increase and the Council be likely to attract criticism from central government and monitoring agencies such as the Food Standards Agency.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 10% would result in a reduction of community safety officers/wardens and a reduction in community safety standards and measures to reduce anti-social behaviour.
• This reduction would also require a reduction in environmental health and trading standards officers below statutory minimum requirements, leading to reduced levels of inspection and enforcement in all areas of work, including: food safety, health and safety at work, housing standards, product safety and fair trading.
• We would be falling below the national minimum standard required for these essential statutory services and the risk to the safety of residents, workers and visitors would increase.

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the structure of this service.

£0

A 5% investment in these services would allow the Council to increase the number of environmental health and trading standards officers and to improve the service provided. This investment would allow us to increase levels of consumer protection and improve the level of protection and timeliness of food safety, housing and health and safety inspections, to respond to complaints more quickly and to carry out more investigations.

£0

• A 10% investment in this service would support the Council to recruit more environmental health and trading standards officers, for food hygiene and health and safety inspections, housing standards, nuisance complaints, product safety, fair trading and consumer protection against scams. This investment would also support improvements in our wider licensing responsibilities (including premises licensed to supply alcohol, taxis and private hire services, and gambling).
• This increase would enable increased enforcement and awareness campaigns to combat fly-tipping and graffiti issues.
• It would also support improved community safety through the recruitment of additional community safety wardens and the extended coverage of CCTV cameras.

£0

• A 30% reduction in expenditure would require the Council to do all of the above plus cut road safety funding, no new local schemes such as signing and lining, respond only to defects with a safety implication, undertake fewer road resurfacing schemes,  and reduce Council fleet.
• This would include a radical reduction in service activities. For example, there might be no planned maintenance programme for roads, pavements and street lighting. Reactive maintenance would be reduced to emergencies only.
• The bus network would see a significant reduction, with a concentration of services on only the most frequent and high demand routes. Services in rural areas would be reduced significantly or removed entirely.

£0

• A 20% reduction in expenditure would lead to a significant reduction in service levels across the whole directorate, for example only being able to repair the deepest potholes and the most severe pavement defects, a significant reduction in the number of gullies cleansed, undertaking no works on trees other than reactive safety issues and even closure of some assets that we may no longer be able to maintain safely.
• Less serious defects, such as shallow potholes and cracked paving, would increasingly go un-repaired.
• The network of gritted roads would be reduced to high priority routes only.
• The Council would reduce costs by reducing staffing levels and reducing the level of routine non-statutory services. Bus services would be rationalised, bus stops closed, night buses stopped, active travel connectivity diminished, defective networks to remain closed, and little or no investment in strategic transport schemes such as rail infrastructure.

£0

• A 10% reduction in expenditure would see the highways asset deteriorate at a quicker rate, funding for road safety reduced, more money spent on reactive/pothole repairs at the expense of investment in planned maintenance, a reduction in bridge and structures inspections, and a reduction in proactive tree maintenance.
• Resources would need to focus on high-priority repairs, with the investigation rate reduced for pothole repairs, and less urgent repairs taking longer to be completed.
• This reduction could also require staffing reductions within teams that include highways, flooding, bridges, trees, inspections and transport, meaning response rates deteriorating. Strategic transport would deliver only statutory functions and the work needed to plan for the enhancement and improvement of our sustainable transport networks (bus, rail, cycle etc.) would reduce.

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the structure of this service.

£0

• A 5% increase would allow further bus services to be supported, particularly in rural areas where the market makes such services unprofitable without Council support.
• This investment would support the Council to meet the growing need for urgent reactive maintenance to keep the road network safe for its many users (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians).

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would enable the Council to maintain a better condition of road and transport networks, although it would not be enough to start to address the backlog of defects, which currently stands at £290m.
• This increase would support the Council to be more pro-active in implementing preventative treatments on carriageways and footways that prolong the life of the asset, rather than reactively maintaining it (potholes). This would also include other highways assets such as bridges, signals, gullies, street lighting etc. across the borough.
• This investment would enable the Council to develop more cycle lanes and active travel opportunities as well as help us support and promote more  bus routes, providing things like real-time information to make public transport more accessible and easier to use.

£0

• The number of those rough sleeping in the borough would significantly increase.
• The Council would be unable to meet its statutory legal duties for homelessness, including the required statutory strategies and reviews of the homelessness service.
• We would only be able to offer very basic support to residents with housing needs.
• There would be an increase in the number of empty properties across the borough.

£0

• The Council would not be able to deliver services beyond statutory duties and would have to prioritise need to those at highest risk.
• West Cheshire Home the Choice Based Lettings system would need to stop with a reversion to a waiting list for those in only the greatest need.
• Empty homes would not be prioritised and remain empty for longer.

£0

• A reduction in investment of 10% would mean that the current levels of homelessness support would be reduced on the frontline and the Council would have difficulty meeting demand.

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.

£0

• This increase of 5% would mean Cheshire West and Chester is able to better resource the services to deal with the increased demand for homelessness support and focus more resources on bringing forward supported accommodation.

£0

• This increase of 10% would enable Cheshire West and Chester to provide more preventative focused support by investing in services which prevent people becoming homeless.
• This increase would provide more support in temporary accommodation to those who are homeless, helping to move them on to their own independent accommodation.

£0

• The planning service would be reduced to minimum to meet statutory legal obligations.
• There would be no input from planning or specialist services to schemes outside the planning submission, resulting in a reduction in quality of development.
• There would be a significant reduction in formal enforcement action
• Appeals would increase.
• There would be a significant delay in preparation of policies and the Local Plan resulting in a significantly longer period of speculative housing development across the borough.
• There would be the minimum required Council support for neighbourhood plans.

£0

• The planning service would be reduced and any specialist services that are not statutory would stop, meaning outcomes from development would be of a reduced quality.
• The Council would not be able to deal with the volume of applications within statutory targets.
• The Council would not be able to deal with the volume of enforcement complaints received
• Planning policies would take longer to prepare and meeting legal targets for the production of new local plan would be difficult.  
• There would be a greater number of appeals, resulting in less control over planning decisions and the potential for more successful planning challenges. 

£0

• A reduction of 10% in planning services would mean the staff numbers would be reduced and the backlog would increase leading to longer times to determine planning applications and carry out enforcement investigations.
• Staff reduction would also lead to an increase in the time to produce a new local plan, allowing the Council to resist speculative housing development on the edge of settlements.

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same but demand for the service has increased as a result of the submission of major applications, applications are likely to take longer to determine if there is no resource increase.

£0

Current demands in the service would be helped, but the impact would be small especially given current volumes.

£0

There would be increased investment in our planning services. There is a national shortage of planning professionals. By investing in the service, the current resources would be more resilient and over time resources would grow meaning applications are processed quicker.

£0

• The Council could not deliver regeneration schemes across the borough and would have to prioritise a reduced manageable number.
• Some areas in need of public investment would remain as they are.
• The Council would have a minimal skills and training programme.
• Local businesses would receive little or no support from the Council and may choose to leave the borough and invest elsewhere as a result.
• There would be very limited or no capacity to attract new businesses and jobs, leading to the borough falling behind other areas and would lead to reduced productivity.

£0

• A 20% reduction in expenditure would require the Council to prioritise regeneration plans across the borough, focusing on areas of greatest need and pulling back from other areas.
• This reduction would also lead to a loss of grant funding for skills and employment and a reduced amount of skills and training provision for residents.
• The Council would have to reduce or stop its business support service and would need to prioritise business enquiries based on scale of impact.

£0

A 10% reduction in expenditure to this budget would require the Council to review the current arrangements for delivering support to businesses and unemployed residents to identify potential savings.

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.  

£0

• A 5% increase to this budget would allow the Council to provide some increased support to existing businesses and help them to retain and recruit staff. 
• The Council would increase support to the social enterprise and third sector.
• This investment would allow enhanced training and skills to respond to needs of employers and support residents into work.
• Continue to sustain grow the programme for towns and communities to create good places to live and work.

£0

• The Council would be able to provide more support to businesses and to invest more in attracting new businesses and jobs to the area. This includes social enterprises and the third sector.
• This increase would allow the Council to provide more skills and training for residents to enable them to access jobs.
• This would allow more investment into our towns to support good places to live.
• The Council would be able to increase activity to support a fairer, greener and stronger economy.

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 30% would require the Council to explore a significantly reduced waste collection service, making collections less frequently than our current levels.  
• This level of savings would also require the Council to retain only its Primary Household Waste Recycling Centres.

£0

• The Council would have to consider closing a minimum of two of the Household Waste Recycling Centres or opening all sites at reduced hours.
• The Council would have to consider reducing the frequency of domestic waste and recycling collections.

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 10% would require the Council to reduce waste collection costs by modifying current service standards and encouraging lower volumes of waste and further recycling.
• The Council would need to consider the frequency of collections at its kerbside for residual waste.
• The Council would also have to explore potential savings through staff reductions, and closing one of its Household Waste Recycling Service.

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.

£0

• An increase of 5% would enable the Council to extend the opening hours of the waste and recycling centres in the borough. 
• This would support the Council to increase the promotion of recycling through advertising campaigns and engagement with schools.

£0

• An increase of 10% would enable the Council to develop new and innovative approaches to recycling.
• This increase would support the recruitment of additional staff to provide an improved service at waste and recycling centres. 
• This would support the promotion of recycling campaigns across the borough. 
• This level of increase would support changes to improve current recycling targets.

£0

• A 30% reduction would create a serious risk that the Council could not meet all of its legal duties to assess and meet eligible care needs.
• Care and support would need to be focused on the most urgent needs, with much less preventative and community-based support available.
• This could increase risks for people who draw on care and support, including risks linked to delays, unmet needs and safeguarding concerns.
• It could also increase pressure on unpaid carers, care providers, hospitals and emergency services.

£0

• A 20% reduction would create significant pressure on the Council’s ability to assess needs and arrange care in a timely way.
• Waiting times for assessments, reviews and care arrangements would be likely to increase.
• Support would increasingly need to focus on people with the highest level of need, with less preventative help available.
• There would be a greater risk that some people do not receive the right support at the right time, which could increase pressure on unpaid carers and health services.
• There would be fewer resources to support and monitor care quality across the borough.

£0

• A 10% reduction would mean fewer resources are available while demand and costs continue to rise.
• People may wait longer for assessments, reviews and care arrangements.
• There would be less capacity to monitor care quality and support providers, at a time when recruitment and sustainability pressures are already affecting the care market.
• Some preventative support, such as telecare, adaptations, reablement or short breaks for carers, may need to be reduced. This could mean some people need more intensive support later.

£0

• The budget gap already includes expected demand and inflation pressures.
• Keeping budgets at 0% would mean the Council aims to maintain the service levels and provision people experience today.

£0

• A 5% increase would help the Council manage rising demand and cost pressures.
• It would support more timely assessments and reviews, and help people access care and support when they need it.
• It would help maintain preventative support that can reduce, delay or prevent the need for more intensive care later.

£0

• A 10% increase would help the Council respond to rising demand and cost pressures while maintaining current services.
• It would support more timely assessments, reviews and arrangements for care and support.
• It would help protect preventative support, such as reablement, adaptations, telecare and support for carers, which can help people stay independent for longer.
• It would also support work with care providers to maintain safe, good-quality and sustainable services in the borough.

£0

• A 30% reduction would create a serious risk that the Council could not provide enough support to meet all eligible needs.
• Services would need to focus on the most urgent needs, with much less preventative support, respite and community-based support available.
• This could increase risks for people who draw on care and support, and place greater pressure on families, unpaid carers, hospitals and emergency services.

£0

• A 20% reduction would place significant pressure on services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
• Support would increasingly need to focus on people with the highest level of need, with less preventative and community-based support available.
• This could increase pressure on families and unpaid carers, and may lead to greater demand on health and emergency services if people’s needs increase.

£0

• A 10% reduction would mean fewer resources are available while demand and costs continue to rise.
• People may wait longer for assessments, reviews and support planning.
• There may be less flexibility in the type and amount of support available, including support for carers and short breaks.
• Reduced preventative support could mean more people need higher levels of care later, including during the transition into adulthood.

£0

• The budget gap already includes expected demand and inflation pressures.
• Keeping budgets at 0% would mean the Council aims to maintain the service levels and provision people experience today.

£0

• A 5% increase would help the Council keep pace with rising demand and cost pressures.
• It would support more timely assessments, reviews and arrangements for care and support.
• It would help maintain support for families and unpaid carers, including short breaks where these are available.

£0

• A 10% increase would help the Council respond to rising demand and cost pressures for learning disability and autism support.
• It would support more timely assessments, reviews and care planning so that people can receive support when they need it.
• It would help maintain support for carers, including short breaks, and help people live as independently as possible in their communities.

£0

• A 30% reduction would create a serious risk that the Council could not provide enough mental health support to meet all eligible needs safely.
• Community-based and preventative support would be greatly reduced, with services increasingly focused on urgent or crisis situations.
• This could increase the need for long-term or out-of-area placements, and may increase risks linked to homelessness and public protection where support cannot be provided early enough.
• It could also increase pressure on families, unpaid carers, hospitals, housing services and emergency services.

£0

• A 20% reduction would significantly reduce the support available for people with mental health needs.
• Services would increasingly need to focus on people in crisis or with the highest level of need, with less preventative, early intervention and lower-level community support available.
• This could lead to greater use of long-term placements or out-of-area support where local community support is not enough to manage risk safely.
• It could also increase pressure on families, unpaid carers, housing services and other public services.

£0

• A 10% reduction would affect the speed of assessments, the range of support available and how quickly people can access help.
• Services would need to focus more on people with the highest level of need, with less funding available for prevention, early intervention and community support.
• This could place more pressure on families and unpaid carers who provide support.

£0

• The budget gap already includes expected demand and inflation pressures.
• Keeping budgets at 0% would mean the Council aims to maintain the service levels and provision people experience today.

£0

• A 5% increase would help the Council respond to rising demand and cost pressures in mental health support.
• It would support more timely assessments, reviews and access to support when people need it.
• It would help protect preventative and community-based support, reducing the need for more intensive services where this can be safely achieved.

£0

• A 10% increase would help maintain and strengthen community-based mental health support as demand and costs rise.
• It would support more timely assessments, reviews and access to support, including preventative and early intervention services.
• It would help maintain safe frontline Mental Health Act functions, including sufficient Approved Mental Health Professionals.
• It would also help reduce the need for more intensive or out-of-area support where people can be safely supported locally.

£0

• A reduction in this budget of 30% would require the Council to stop many of the services that we provide.
• The Council would no longer be able to meet its legal duties in providing safe public health services.
• Levels of drug and alcohol use, drug related deaths, teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, care home outbreaks would increase, with serious implications on the health of our population, community safety, children’s and adults safeguarding.  This decrease in investment could increase the number of people dying from diseases such as cancer, stroke and heart disease in the long term.
• There would be significant pressure placed on police, health and social care services in the immediate, medium and long term.
• There would be a significant pressure placed on police, health and social care services in the immediate, medium and long term.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of over 20% would lead to significant changes in eligibility for those who use services and the likelihood of stopping some services which we don’t legally need to provide.  There would be poorer levels of patient care, quality and the clinical standards of public health services would be impacted on.
• Community infection prevention and control services would be reduced, leading to more outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as respiratory illnesses in care homes.
• Child health services such as health visitors and school nursing support to children and families would be significantly scaled back.
• Specialist drug and alcohol services would be restricted, leading to greater levels of harm and drug related deaths, and community safety issues.
• Sexually transmitted infections would rise in the community.
• There could be increases in the number of people who smoke, use alcohol and drugs, and childhood and adult obesity levels, leading to an increase in the number of people in the local population suffering from heart disease, cancers and stroke.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 10% would reduce service delivery. 
• The Council would have to stop, merge, or re-purchase services, where appropriate. 
• There would likely be increased costs to health and social care partners in the medium to long term due to decreased health of the population.
• The quality, safety and capacity of our clinical public health services, such as children’s health/health visiting, drug and alcohol support and sexual health services, would be compromised.

£0

There would be changes to service standards as funding has remained at the same level but is impacted by increasing need and cost of service delivery.

£0

• There would be an increase in preventative practice and early intervention to improve the health of the local population.
• This increase would help the Council to improve services and contracts that are already in place for the health and wellbeing of local residents.
• This increase in investment would support the prevention of diseases such as cancer, stroke and heart disease in the long term.

£0

• A 10% increase would help support children, young people and their families through enhanced community-based prevention and early help services.
• A 10% increase in investment for this budget would support the prevention of diseases such as cancer, strokes and heart disease in the long term.
• This increase would allow the Council to invest in new, additional, or extended services to support the health and wellbeing of residents in the borough.
• This will save money to the Council and NHS over the medium to long term, by reducing the number of serious health issues among the population.

£0

• The Council and Brio would be forced to close a range of facilities, significantly reducing the level of provision across the borough and the availability of services.
• There would be an increase in charges to service users substantially above levels of inflation meaning services will be less affordable.
• Community-based physical activity services provided by Brio would cease.
• An alternative operating model may be required.

£0

• Specific facilities will likely need to close, meaning some communities would have to travel further to access leisure, health and wellbeing facilities.
• There would be an increase in charges for service users substantially above levels of inflation meaning services would be less affordable.
• The Council and Brio would be forced to reduce opening hours.
• The range of services available at different facilities would be reduced.
• Brio would be unable to continue delivering community-based physical activity services.

£0

• Specific facilities may need to close, meaning some communities would have to travel further to access leisure, health and wellbeing facilities.
• Reductions in opening hours would have to be explored.
• There would need to be increases in charges to service users above the level of inflation.
• The range of services available at different facilities and in the community would be reduced.
• Brio would be unlikely to continue delivering community-based physical activity services.

£0

• The Council and Brio would need to deliver service efficiencies and identify further income opportunities to meet cost pressures. 
• Charges to service users would continue to increase in line with inflation.

£0

• Additional funding would allow some investment to meet the costs of existing facilities. 
• Charges to service users would continue to increase in line with inflation.

£0

• Additional funding would be used to invest in the service offer and support more residents to access services from existing Brio sites and more widely.
• Charges to service users would increase in line with inflation. 

£0

• A 30% reduction in expenditure would mean that the Council would no longer be able to deliver legal duties such as supervised contact between children in care and their birth families and social work visits.
• Family Help Lead Practitioners/Social workers would have unmanageable and unsafe caseloads.  more children will come into care in acute and crisis situations.
• The Council would be rated as inadequate by Ofsted and central Government could take over the running of services.
• Widespread closures to children’s centres and Best Start Family Hubs and children’s homes could take place across the borough. 
• There could be a significant increase in levels of youth crime and anti-social behaviour as a result of cuts to the Youth Offending Service.
• The Youth Offending Service could fail a joint inspection by Ofsted and HMI Probation.
• There would be increased costs to the Council, police and NHS in the long term, as a result of reduced preventative services. 
• All youth work provision would cease.
• The Young People’s Service would not be able to meet their statutory duties of tracking and monitoring the destinations of all young people
• There could be an increase in young people Not in Employment, Education and Training
• The Domestic Abuse service would not be able to safely respond to people experiencing domestic abuse

£0

• This would mean a significant reduction in the number of Family Help Lead Practitioners and social workers and unallocated families meaning staff spending much less time with children and reduced oversight of practice.
• The Council would not be able to investigate some reports of serious harm and risk in a timely fashion. 
• Our Corporate Parenting duties would be significantly compromised.
• We would struggle to recruit and retain high-quality foster , and would not be able to support placements, or effectively staff our own childrens homes. Placement costs will significantly increase. 
• There is a strong risk that the Council would not be able to meet our legal duties for protecting children, meaning increased risk for young people and the Council being rated as ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.
• There could be a small increase in levels of youth crime and anti-social behavior as a result of cuts to the Youth Offending Service and youth services 
• There would be increased costs to partner organisations such as the police and NHS, as a result of reduced preventative services.
• All youth service provision would likely cease
• There could be an increase in young people Not in Employment, Education and Training 

£0

• There would be a reduction in the timeliness of services to families due to fewer Family Help staff. This would impact ability to reduce numbers of children into care.
• There would be reduced oversight of cases and an increased risk of poor practice and unallocated cases.
• Reduction of staff would increase caseloads for children in care and care leavers.  Reduced support and care planning would impact placement stability and care planning, sufficiency of placements for children in our care would be compromised as would the process of quality assuring placements and practice.  placement costs will increase.
• The Council could review the opening hours of Best Start Family Hubs to reduce costs and reduce some service delivery. 
• Some existing youth service provision would cease
• There would be a reduction in the number of families that we could support as part of our prevention agenda
• We may need to reduce our Community and Intervention domestic abuse services
• The Council would not be able to conduct partnership working as effectively with the NHS, police and other key organisations. 

• We would be unable to offer support the full cohort of young people who are Not in Employment, Education or Training

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service. 

£0

• It could allow the Council to increase our investment into these services.
• There would be increased investment in preventative practice, potentially reducing pressure on other services in future years.

£0

• This would allow investment to ensure that children open to Family Help and children in care /care leavers would have increased opportunities with their named Family Help Lead Practitioner/Social Worker and to engage in interventions that will support them and their family.
• It would allow manageable caseloads for Family Help Lead Practitioners/ social workers
• This would enable us to purchase more specialist services to support children in the area
• There would be more early support services available for children across the borough.
• It would enable us to increase support to families where domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental health is affecting their life chances
• This investment would support the Council to work with organisations to provide a wider offer of preventative services to those who need it most.
• New youth service provision
• Enable more support for foster carers which would positively impact placement stability & retention.

£0

• Reducing expenditure by 30% would significantly reduce the quality of support to educational settings across the borough in the borough. 
• The Council would not be able to meet its statutory duties in providing support to children, families and schools.
• The Council would be rated as inadequate by Ofsted and central Government could take over the running of services.
• The Council have reduced to the delivery of statutory services only to schools and settings but the increased burdens had added increased pressures to teams. This would mean the Council may not be compliant and timely in responding to the delivery of responsibilities. Children and young people would not be offered a service and safeguarding may be a risk for the Council.

£0

• Reducing expenditure by 20% would result in significant reductions in the level of support provided to schools, children and families.   This would lead to the quality of education across the borough worsening. 
• The level of support provided to vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, would be significantly reduced.  Any reduction in this level of resource would result in the Council failing to meet its statutory duties, including providing sufficient nursery places, ensuring we complete statements of educational needs within a reasonable time period, and working with schools to improve the quality of education available to our children and young people.
• It would also lead to reduced resources in the Education Welfare Service, attendance of children and young people as part of safeguarding young people and again would lead to increased demands on other Council services. 

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 10% would require the Council to reduce the support provided to  vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs.
• This reduction would also require the Council to reduce transport support across the borough further.
• Given the current increases in levels of need for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, this would increase reputational damage as children will face longer waiting lists for education, health and care plans and school places.
• It would also impact on new burdens placed on the local authority in relation to the monitoring of attendance
• It would potentially lead the Council to being non-compliant with the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice and lead to increased tribunals, judicial challenge and increased costs.

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.
• Current need for services including Children’s Educational Psychology, Education Welfare Services and SEND is rising significantly and resources are stretched to respond effectively to all requests. This is likely to lead to increased demand on other services within the Council

£0

• An increase of 5% would allow the Council to invest more into supporting children, families and schools, to achieve high levels of attainment and engagement of children and young people.
• Improved attendance and universal wellbeing for children and young people will lead to a reduction in council services

£0

• An increase of 10% would allow the Council to reinstate some of the services that we have had to reduce, due to changes in Government funding, such as education welfare. We would also be able to invest in targeted support for children to support them to achieve positive outcomes, higher educational attainment and have higher levels of attendance.  
• We would also be able to invest more in workforce development around inclusion and support for children with SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability).
• This would lead to improvements in the attendance and engagement of children in schools, more support for pupils with special educational needs, including increasing the opportunity to attend schools closer to home and more targeted support for schools in need of additional help.
• Early Intervention will likely lead to improved engagement in education and less involvement of council services in the future

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 30% would mean that all contact with the Council would have to take place online due to reductions in face-to-face engagement staff and a telephone contact centre with very long wait times. 
• The Council would struggle to meet our legal responsibilities for consultation and engagement on key issues such as our annual budget. 
• Community led funding would cease impacting communities to develop and deliver local projects.

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 20% would reduce the level of access that residents would have to the Council through significant reductions to our Customer Contact Centre and face to face contact.
• There would be a limited engagement programme with local residents, as the Council would have to prioritise key issues for consultation.
• There would be smaller community teams impacting engagement and partnerships and reduced community led funding to develop and deliver local projects.

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 10% would mean that the Council would have to reduce the funding levels to our core support services, making staff reductions in our Customer Contact Centre and having fewer people to deal with queries from the public.
• The Council would have to carry out fewer public consultations. 
• There would be less face-to-face engagement with local residents, as more engagement would be conducted online. 
• There would be less capacity in community teams to support local engagement and partnerships and reduced community led funding. 

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the structure of this service.  

£0

• An increase in expenditure of 5% would allow the Council to improve our communication, consultation and engagement with local residents. 
• This investment would enable the Council to conduct more consultations on key issues, and organise more events and materials for residents to pass on their views. 

£0

• An increase of 10% for this budget would enable the Council to improve communication, engagement and consultation with local residents.
• The Council would be able to recruit more staff to work in the customer contact centre.
• The Council would be able to deal with residents’ questions more efficiently.
• The Council would be able to conduct more consultations with residents on key issues and changes in practice.
• The Council would be able to increase capacity to support local engagement, partnerships and community teams.

£0

• A 30% decrease in expenditure would lead to significant staff reductions and a loss of expertise across the Council
• These staffing reductions could lead to significant delays in the procurement and purchasing of new services, leading to financial savings not being achieved
• These reductions could result in the Council failing to deliver key savings in other departments, leading to more difficult choices needing to be made to deliver a balanced budget 
• These reductions would increase the risk of Cheshire West and Chester being fined for poor practice or being at risk from fraud.

£0

• A 20% decrease in expenditure would lead to staff reductions and a loss of expertise in a number of departments, including procurement, audit and performance. 
•  As a result of this reduction, there could be an increase in the number of delays that would occur when purchasing new services.  This could lead to financial savings not being achieved.
• As a result of this reduction, there would be an increase in the number of major reform projects that would not be completed.  This could lead to financial savings not being achieved. 

£0

• A 10% decrease in expenditure would reduce the Council’s resources that are dedicated to the procurement and purchasing of services. 
• This reduction would lead to staff reductions following the completion of major projects. 
• This reduction would mean that the Council would be less able to monitor the performance of services.

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the structure of this service. 

£0

• This increase would support the Council to improve the performance monitoring of teams and contracts.

£0

• An increase of 10% for this budget would enable the Council to deliver more coordinated and effective reforms of services through a series of major change projects.   
• This increase would support the Council to monitor and manage the performance of teams and contracts more closely.
• This increase would also increase capacity to review existing contracts to improve efficiency and value for money.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 30% would very significantly reduce the Council’s ability to manage buildings and would reduce funding available for building maintenance.
• The Council would need to rush into the reactive closure of a very significant number of buildings which would have a significant unplanned impact on services

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 20% would significantly reduce the Council’s ability to manage buildings and would reduce funding available for building maintenance.
• The Council would need to rush into the reactive closure of a significant number of buildings which would have an unplanned impact on services

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 10% would reduce the Council’s ability to manage buildings and would reduce funding available for building maintenance.
• The Council would need to rush into the reactive closure of buildings which would have an unplanned impact on services

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service. 

£0

• An increase of 5% would provide increased support to manage the Council’s buildings more effectively and would allow properties to be maintained to a higher standard. 
• This would result in Council buildings being cleaner and repairs being conducted in a more timely fashion. 

£0

• An increase of 10% would provide additional resources to support investment into Council buildings and properties.
• This investment would support Council buildings to be maintained to a higher standard, with cleaning being conducted more regularly.
• This investment would enable building repairs to be conducted in a more timely manner.
• This investment would support improvements in the working environment for staff and users of our buildings.

£0

• A decrease of 30% in expenditure would include significant reductions to the level of support that is provided to councillors, significantly impacting upon their ability to represent their wards.
• This reduction would create a significant risk for the Council in delivering our legal responsibilities, accurately maintaining the electoral register and delivering local elections.
• It would result in staff reductions in our information management department, leading to reduced controls over the storage of resident data and slower responses to freedom of information requests.
• There is a risk that the Council would be rated poorly by the Information Commissioner’s Office as a result of poor management of personal information. 

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 20% would require the Council to significantly lower the level of support that is provided to councillors, reducing their ability to represent the public. 
• We would also have to further reduce members’ budgets (funding which is given to each councillor to address specific issues in their wards).  This would lead to less investment in communities and the failure to address some local issues.
• It would lead to significant reductions in staffing and increase the risk of liabilities to the Council, due to a loss of staff and professional expertise. 

£0

• A 10% decrease in expenditure would require the Council to significantly lower the level of support that is provided to councillors, reducing their ability to represent the public.

£0

• As the level of investment for these services has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of these services. 

£0

• A 5% increase would support the Council to continue to run smooth and well-managed local elections.
• It would enable the Council to deal with legal issues more quickly. 
• This would also support the Council to better manage risks relating to information management.

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would support the Council to continue to run smooth and well-managed local elections.
• This increase could support an increase in members’ budgets, providing councillors with more resources to spend directly in their wards.
• It could support the Council to recruit additional staff for legal and democratic services to ensure that the organisation is well governed. 
• This would also enable the Council to reply more promptly to freedom of information requests.

£0

• This reduction would lead to a significant reduction in the help available to local people in emergencies
• It would require staff reductions leading to an increased risk of financial mismanagement. 
• It could also impact on the Council’s ability to procure effectively and achieve value for money when buying goods and services. 

£0

• A 20% decrease in expenditure would lead to significant reductions in staffing levels across these teams. 
• It would mean less help being available to local people in emergencies
• This would also increase the risk of liabilities to the Council due to a loss of staff and professional expertise. 

£0

• A 10% decrease in expenditure would require the Council to make staff reductions in our finance and procurement teams, impacting on the quality, speed and responsiveness of services. 
• It would mean less help would be available to local people in emergencies

£0

• As the level of investment for these services has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of these services. 

£0

• A 5% increase would allow the Council to invest in the ‘Help in Emergencies for Local People’ scheme
• Accelerate some procurement reviews, potentially saving money by replacing current contracts with more efficient alternatives.

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would allow greater investment in the ‘Help in Emergencies for Local People’ scheme to support people in financial hardship and provide additional support to increase resident’s financial resilience.
• It would support the Council to recruit additional staff for financial services to ensure that the organisation is financially well managed 
• Additional staff within the assessment centre would speed up the timeliness or processing of benefits and increase the resources for debt collection.
• It would also allow the Council to accelerate some procurement reviews, potentially saving money by replacing current contracts with more efficient alternatives.

£0

• A 30% reduction in expenditure would require significant staff savings, reducing the capacity of the human resources team to resolve performance and development requirements 
• There would only be basic opportunities for training and development for the workforce.  This could result in difficulty in attracting and retaining high-quality staff. 

£0

• A 20% reduction in expenditure would require the Council to make staff reductions to our human resources team. 
• This would impact on the ability of the team to address performance and development requirements in a timely manner.  

£0

• A 10% reduction in expenditure would reduce the amount of funding that is available for staff training and development.
• This would mean that human resources support is delayed.
• This means that the Council would not be able to recruit and train as many apprentices. 

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.  

£0

• A 5% increase in this area would provide additional funding for staff training and development.
• This would help the Council to recruit and retain staff with the necessary skills and experience.

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would provide additional funding for staff training and development, helping the Council to recruit and retain staff with appropriate skills and experience.
• This increase would help encourage more young people into employment with the Council and those looking to re-train.
• This increase would allow the human resources service to provide more timely support for performance and development requirements.

£0

• A 30% decrease in expenditure would mean that some of the Council’s ICT systems will no longer be supported. This may lead to delays in processing information, such as payments and could affect front line service delivery. 
• The Council would have to use obsolete equipment and would not be able to make the most of opportunities to improve efficiency through new ways of working. 
• Council services would not be as efficient as current technology could enable us to be.

£0

• A 20% decrease in expenditure would result in the Council having to prioritise some of the support systems that we maintain and may result in delays in information being processed. 
• There would be a longer replacement period for obsolete ICT equipment.
• Service delivery would be affected in some areas as it would take longer to make ICT related improvements.

£0

• A 10% decrease in expenditure would mean that the Council would be able to replace ICT equipment less frequently and planned improvements to online services would take longer. 

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the structure of this service.  

£0

• A 5% increase in this budget would support the Council to maintain our ICT support systems.
• This investment would enable the Council to purchase new technology and equipment for a small number of targeted services.  

£0

• A 10% increase would lead to improvements in our customer journey more speedily than otherwise, mproved systems would enable information to be processed more effectively.  This investment would support the Council to invest in software and equipment to provide more services online at pace.  This could result in savings in the medium to long term.
• The Council would be able to replace and update ICT equipment more frequently to take advantage of improvements in technology and therefore services delivered. 

£0

• As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, there would be no change in the delivery of this service. 

£0

• This will raise additional income, to be spent on maintaining and improving car parks and delivering key services. It will enable the Council to maintain the current level of service and keep costs in line with inflation.

£0

• This will raise additional income, to be spent on maintaining and improving car parks and delivering key services and will result in additional improvements and car park upgrades. 

£0

There would be no change as charges would remain the same. 

£0

• This will bring new income into Cheshire West and Chester but would cost residents and visitors more money when using these services. This funding could be used to improve the service and support key services.

£0

• This will bring new income into Cheshire West and Chester but would cost residents and visitors more money when using these services.
• This funding could be used to improve the service and support key services.

£0

There would be no change as charges would remain the same.

£0

• This would lead to additional costs to local market traders, and businesses operating from Council-owned properties.
• There would be a risk that properties and market stalls could not be let and that income would fall as a result.

£0

• This would lead to significant additional costs to local market traders, and businesses operating from Council-owned properties. 
• There would be an increase in the risk that properties and market stalls could not be let and that income would fall as a result. The quality and vibrancy of the council’s markets would be negatively impacted.  Markets are most viable when they have a critical mass of traders.  When they do not have this they go into decline.

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

£0

This funding would be used only for adult social care services.

£0

This funding would be used only for adult social care services.