Fit for the future

£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 increase would mean longer waiting times for flytipping to be removed.
• Neighbourhoods would receive between 3-4 cuts per year for grass mowing.
• Service request would need to be turned off to manage demand.

£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, street sweeping, litter bin and litter collection would all be reduced, which would mean Town Centres and Shops as a priority only.

£0

As the level of investment for this service has remained the same, a risk based approach would be taken to sweeping, with flooded areas being a priority

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 have more focused street cleaning in targeted areas, tackling known issues to improve cleanliness and appearance of some local areas.   
• Destination parks and recreational facilities would be cleaner and better maintained. 
• This would allow increased wildflower sites across the borough
• This would increase the number of impact days held to combat flytipping 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.
• It would enable increased enforcement and awareness campaigns to combat flytipping and graffiti issues
• It would enable increased 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 cemetries

£0

• This reduction of 30% in expenditure would result in widespread closures for libraries and museums.
• 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.
• 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 also 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 safey 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 delivery 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 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 complainst more quickly and to carry out more investigations.

£0

• A 10% investment in this service would supportthe 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).
• 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.

£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, 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.

£0

• A 10% reduction in expenditure would see the highways asset deteriorate at a quicker rate, funding for road safety reduced; and would involve the introduction of more efficient street lighting regimes across residential streets which would include light dimming or switch off of certain lights as well as us having to  spend more money on reactive/ pothole repairs at the expense of investment in maintenance. .
• Resources would need to focus on high priority repairs, with 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 teams, meaning response rates deteriorating.
• Strategic transport would deliver only statutory functions

£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, 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, implementing preventative treatments on carriageways and footways that prolong the life of the asset, rather than reactively maintaining it (potholes)  this would include other highways assets such as bridges, signals 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 more bus routes, promote them and provide 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.
• 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 for planning applications and 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, there would be no change in the delivery of this service.

£0

Current demands in the service would be helped but the impact would be small.

£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 whole borough and so 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 support from the Council and may choose to leave the borough and invest elsewhere as a result.
• There would be very limited 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 a reduced 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 pool resources with neighbouring authorities. 
• The Council would also need 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 advice 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. 

£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.
• 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 reatin only its primary Household Waste Recycling Centres. 

£0

• The Council would have to consider closing some of the Household Waste Recycling Centres.
• 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, or saving money on hours and opening time for 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. 

£0

• The Council would be unlikely to meet its legal duties in providing care.
• Care arrangements would increasingly be unable to meet all needs, putting vulnerable residents at greater risk of harm. 
• This could lead to increased spending by other public services, for example the NHS, as higher numbers of residents may need to be admitted to hospital.
• Significant risk of strain for unpaid carers

£0

• There would be a significant risk of less detailed assessments taking place, and residents’ needs not being properly identified or met.
• Waiting times for assessments and care would increase.
• We would have to amend eligibility criteria, only providing placements to those most at need, and potentially placing pressure on hospital services. 
• There would be a significant risk that inappropriate or insufficient care is arranged to support the needs of residents.
• There would be fewer resources in place to monitor and ensure the quality of services that are being provided in the borough.
• The Council would have to stop all of the services we currently provided where we are not legally required to do so 

£0

• With rising demand on services, there would be less ability for staff to conduct assessments and arrange care in a timely fashion.
• It would be less appealing for high-quality care providers to deliver services in the borough.
• There would be an increase in the number of delays in assessments taking place.
• There would be reduced processes in place to monitor and ensure that we purchase high quality care to meet residents’ needs. 
• The Council would have to stop many of the non-statutory services we currently provide

£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

• There would be increased capacity within social care teams to meet rising demand on services
• There would be improved timeliness of assessments for residents.
• More preventative services could be introduced to reduce the need for care

£0

• An increase in expenditure of 10% would support the Council to meet additional demand for services and to improve service quality.
• Older residents and people with physical difficulties would receive their care more promptly, following assessment due to improved times in processes. 
• This increase would improve the quality of care provided and the choice of care services, reducing the number of residents who are admitted to hospital on a regular basis and saving money for NHS partners.
• There would be improvements in the processes in place to monitor service standards, and ensure that high quality care is delivered in the borough.

£0

• The Council would have to stop some of the services that are provided
• The Council would no longer be able to meet its legal duties in providing care.
• This could lead to increased spending for other public sector partners.
• There could be increased harm to people who are now without services

£0

• The Council would need to reduce the number of people using the service; this would involve changing the criteria used to assess eligibility and charges for services.
• The Council would need to reduce the range and level of services that are provided to try and save money.

£0

• The Council would need to reduce expenditure by 10% on the delivery of these services. 
• Whilst services would remain in place, less money would be spent on the contracts, impacting on the quality of services in the borough.
• The Council would need to reduce the level of support provided to try and save money.

£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 would support more timely assessments, reviews and provision of support.
• This would support the Council to increase the level of support provided to local carers, including increased short breaks.

£0

• The improved effectiveness of these services would support more people to be able to live independently in the community
• This increase would support the Council to increase the level of support provided to local carers, including increased short breaks.

£0

• In reducing expenditure by 30% we would be unable to provide sufficient support to residents.
• Eligibility criteria would be significantly tightened reducing the number of people able to access services.
• Preventative and early intervention services would be stopped as services would increasingly only be available to those in crisis.

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 20% would result in increased risk, eligibility criteria would have to be amended, focusing support on those in the greatest need.
• Services would increasingly only be available to those in crisis, with preventative and early intervention and ongoing lower level support services beings reduced. 

£0

• A 10% reduction in expenditure would impact on the timeliness of assessments, the range of services available and the speed with which support can be accessed.
• Services would begin to focus on those in the greatest need, with less investment being available for prevention and early intervention.

£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 would enable the Council to expand its provision of mental health support to a wider range of people.  
• It would support improvements in service standards and a greater focus on prevention and early intervention
• It would support more timely assessments and reviews to enable people to access the support they need when they need it.

£0

• A 10% increase in this budget would support the Council to expand mental health support to a wider range of people.
• It would support improvements in service standards and a greater focus on prevention and early intervention.
• This increase would support high quality organisations to work in the borough, improving service standards.

£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 substance misuse, drug related deaths, teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and care home outbreaks could increase with serious implications on the health of our population, community safety, children’s and adults safeguarding.  This decrease in investment will increase the number of people dying from diseases such as cancer, stroke and heart disease in the 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 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 substance misuse support will 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, substance misuse 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 the monitoring and management of services. 
• The Council would have to either 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 no changes to service standards as funding has remained at the same level.   

£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 of investment in 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 or additional 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

• 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.

£0

• 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.

£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.
• Social workers would have unmanageable and unsafe caseloads.
• 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 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.

£0

• This would mean a significant reduction in the number of social workers and unallocated cases, 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. 
• We would struggle to recruit and retain high-quality foster and adoptive parents. 
• 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. 
• 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 

£0

• There would be a reduction in the timeliness of services to families due to fewer social work staff.
• There would be reduced oversight of cases and an increased risk of poor practice and unallocated cases.
• The sufficiency of local placements for children in our care would be compromised as would the process of quality assuring placements and practice.
• The Council could review the opening hours of hub children’s centres 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 medium risk domestic abuse provision
• The Council would not be able to conduct partnership working as effectively with the NHS, police and other key organisations. 

£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 children’s social care would have increased opportunities with their named social worker and to engage in interventions that will support them and their family.
• It would allow manageable caseloads for social workers.
• This would enable us to purchase more specialist services to support children in the area.
• There would be more early help and prevention 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

£0

• Reducing expenditure by 30% would significantly reduce the quality of support to educational settings across the borough in the borough. 
• The Council may 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 is 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 schools and 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 demand and increases 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 Need and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice and lead to increased 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. 

£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 e 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 on key issues such as our annual budget. 

£0

• A decrease in expenditure of 20% would reduce the level of access that residents will 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.

£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.  

£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.

£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 projects.   
• This increase would support the Council to monitor 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 require major reductions in the maintenance of Council properties, impacting on service quality and the cleanliness of buildings. 
• It would also be necessary to sell a significant number of important Council properties to achieve this level of saving.  The closure of buildings would have a significant impact upon the quality of local services

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 20% would require the Council to explore sharing properties with some partner organisations, leading to the closure of some Council buildings which would impact on the delivery of services. 
• This could also result in staffing reductions, which would impact on service quality and reduce the lifespan of buildings.  

£0

• A reduction in expenditure of 10% would reduce the Council’s support to manage buildings and would reduce funding available for building maintenance.
• This reduction would require more staff to work remotely and likely closure of buildings.
• The size of our estate would need to shrink

£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
• 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
• 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. 
• 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. 

£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.

£0

• A 10% decrease in expenditure would mean that the Council would be able to replace ICT equipment less frequently. 

£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 as improved 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.  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. 

£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. This 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. 

£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 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 increasing risk that properties could not be let and that income would fall as a result.

£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.