Agenda and minutes

(15 minutes for public questions and 25 minutes for Councillor questions)

The Mayor advised the meeting that the first item on the agenda in Open Council was Public Question Time. The questions had been received from members of the public and would be taken in the order in which they had been received. Council was advised that if the questioner was not present, then the question would appear on the screen in the Council Chamber. The following public questions had been submitted: (15 mins)

1.               Question from Leonie Kirkbride via email

“I wanted to ask a question about the new Royton swimming Baths. Why does the water have to be so cold and sitting on the side be so hot that we are sweating. I find Chadderton baths just right. The water is not that cold. Kids in the swimming lesson yesterday took longer to get in the pool because it was freezing. I was told it's the right temperature. Why so cold. Is there anything you can do about it. Also can I mention again about Roman Road the parking is horrible. People with prams can not get past so they go in the road. Kids coming from school have to walk in the road. Do you want an accident. Why Don't you put double yellow lines on the bit were you have to walk in the road. That would make it safer”.

Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-Operatives, responded that all Main Pools were set at 27 - 29 degrees Celsius, the learner pools were 30 - 32 degrees Celsius.

Royton's Main pool had consistently been between 28.5 - 29 degrees C, purposely set it to the higher range so it did not feel cold. There should be no difference between Royton or Chadderton. The learner pool has always been around 31 degrees C. Poolside air temps should be 1 degree above the pool water and Royton's is consistently around 30 degrees C.

Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways, added that Roman Road, already had some waiting restrictions in place and dedicated mandatory School Keep Clear markings.  There was a layby near the school which some parents used to drop children off.  Parking around schools and at school time peaks caused problems across the borough.  It was not effective to implement waiting restrictions for this type of situation which occured over a relatively short period of time, as the drivers were with the vehicles enabling them to move off if enforcement were carried out.

He had asked for an increased presence by the school safety vehicle to try to encourage appropriate parking behaviour in the area.

2.               Question from Yvonne Farrand via email

“I would like to ask if the road closure arrangements for Shaw market are permanently in place or if they are just a trial.

My reason for asking, is because of the absolute traffic chaos I experienced on Thursday last week. A journey which should have taken me only 10 minutes there and back, took more than three quarters of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kirkham, Hudson and Shah

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th September 2015 be approved as a correct record

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillors Murphy, Hibbert and Brownridge declared a personal interest in Item 12, Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 21^st September, by virtue of their appointments to the Board of First Choice Homes.

Councillors Shuttleworth, Judge and Heffernan declared a pecuniary interest in Item 12, Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 21^st September, by virtue of their appointments to the Oldham Coliseum Board.

Councillors Chauhan, Harrison and McCann declared a personal interest in Item 15(b), Minutes of Partnership meetings, by virtue of their appointments to the Oldham Care and Support Board.

Councillors Sykes, Dean and McCann declared a personal interest in Item 15(b), Minutes of Partnership meetings, by virtue of their appointments to the Unity Partnership.

Councillors Ball, Stretton, Williams, Bashforth, Heffernan declared a personal interest in Item 9, Budget Proposals, by virtue of their membership of the Credit Union.

Councillor Ball declared a personal interest in Item 9, Budget Proposals, by virtue of being the Council lead on Community Horizons.

Councillors Roberts, Dearden, Fielding, Wrigglesworth and Williamson declared a personal interest in Item 9, Budget Proposals, by virtue of being Directors of Positive Steps, Oldham.

Councillor Cosgrove declared a personal interest in Item 9, Budget Proposals, by virtue of being a Trustee of NEON.

The Mayor informed the meeting that no items of Urgent Business had been received.

</AI5>

<AI6>

The Mayor advised the meeting that no items had been received related to the business of the Council.

The Mayor and Councillors Dean, Bates, Jabbar, Ahmad, Sykes and McMahon all paid tribute to the work of the Right Honourable Michael Meacher MP, Honorary Freeman of the Borough and Member of Parliament for Oldham West and Royton. A minute’s silence was held in his memory.

The Mayor advised that one petition had been received for noting by Council.

RESOLVED that the following petition received since the last meeting of the Council be noted:

Economy and Skills

Save Shaw Market Petition (received 20 October 2015) (353 Signatures) (Ref 2015-22)

(time limit 15 minutes).

Councillor Jabbar to MOVE and Councillor Fielding to SECOND:

This Council notes the passing of this Tory Government’s Welfare Bill in the House of Commons.

The bill will cut away another £12 Billion from the welfare budget, hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest, the poor, the jobless, the sick to name a few. This Tory Government seems to be hell bent on attacking towns like Oldham in its cuts to Local Government funding, and now it is taking aim at families who can’t make ends meet.

This bill moves to cut tax credits and housing benefit, measures which we believe will lead to increases in child poverty, this is despite the Conservatives pledging the opposite in their manifesto – a promise not kept.

Indeed, the House of Commons Library has put the average household loss at £1350 a year because of this regressive bill.

This Council resolves:

·       To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government minister, expressing this council’s concern over measures in the Welfare Bill and that an assessment be made of its impact on Oldham should it become law.

·       To ask our three Members of Parliament to campaign against the bill during its passage through both Houses of Parliament and to reasonably amend or vote against the bill, encouraging other parliamentary colleagues to do the same.

The Mayor informed the meeting that there was one item of Outstanding Business from the last Council meeting.

Councillor Jabbar MOVED and Councillor Fielding SECONDED:

“This Council notes the passing of this Tory Government’s Welfare Bill in the House of Commons.

The bill will cut away another £12 Billion from the welfare budget, hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest, the poor, the jobless, the sick to name a few. This Tory Government seems to be hell bent on attacking towns like Oldham in its cuts to Local Government funding, and now it is taking aim at families who can’t make ends meet.

This bill moves to cut tax credits and housing benefit, measures which we believe will lead to increases in child poverty, this is despite the Conservatives pledging the opposite in their manifesto – a promise not kept.

Indeed, the House of Commons Library has put the average household loss at £1350 a year because of this regressive bill.

This Council resolves:

·       To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government minister, expressing this council’s concern over measures in the Welfare Bill and that an assessment be made of its impact on Oldham should it become law.

·       To ask our three Members of Parliament to campaign against the bill during its passage through both Houses of Parliament and to reasonably amend or vote against the bill, encouraging other parliamentary colleagues to do the same”.

AMENDMENT

Councillor Harkness MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED:

“Insert two new paragraphs after the fourth sentence which ends “to name a few”:

“The Government plans to reduce tax credits for three million employees on low pay. This represents a direct attack on everyday workers who go out to work come rain or shine to provide for their families, and this will dishearten them when we should be giving them a helping hand.
Everyone sensible knows we need to balance the books but this should be not be done on the backs of the working poor - especially at a time George Osborne is handing tax breaks to millionaires”.

Motion as Amended to read:

The Council notes the passing of this Tory Government’s Welfare Bill in the House of Commons.

The bill will cut away another £12 Billion from the welfare budget, hitting the most vulnerable in our society the hardest, the poor, the jobless, the sick to name a few.

The Government plans to reduce tax credits for three million employees on low pay. This represents a direct attack on everyday workers who go out to work come rain or shine to provide for their families, and this will dishearten them when we should be giving them a helping hand.
Everyone sensible knows we need to balance the books but this should be not be done on the backs of the working poor - especially at a time George Osborne is handing tax breaks to millionaires.
This Tory Government seems to be hell bent on attacking towns like Oldham in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Please note due to the size of the budget Item, hard copies will be avaliable at the Access Oldham and the Civic Entrance, West Oldham, OL1 1UL.

Mmebers will receive the budget as a supplementary Item.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Finance which presented a revision to the 2016/17 and 2017/18 budget reduction requirement and also the Administration’s detailed Tranche 1 budget reduction proposals for the financial year 2016/17 prior to the receipt of the Local Government Finance Settlement and other information which would impact on budget decisions.  Further detailed budget reduction proposals would be presented to Council on 16 December 2015.

Councillor McMahon MOVED the Budget Proposals and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the Budget Proposals and spoke in support of them

Councillor Mushtaq spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor McCann spoke on the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Dean spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Rehman spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Harrison spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Haque spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Blyth spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor Sykes spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

Councillor McMahon exercised his right of reply and spoke in support of the Budget Proposals.

On being put the vote the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

RESOLVED that:

1.               The revised budget reduction targets for 2016/17 of £18.194m and 2017/18 of £25.200m be approved.

2.               £5.974m of the Tranche 1 budget reduction proposals (presented in summary at Appendix 3 and in detail at Appendix 4) be approved.

3.               The eight budget proposals totalling £3.379m for 2016/17 for which the conclusion of consultation exercises is still required, as set out in Appendices 5 and 6, be noted.

4.               It be noted that the budget reduction target may need to be revised depending on the Government funding and policy announcements, including the Provisional and Final Local Government Finance Settlements for 2016/17.

(time limit 20 minutes)

New Psychoactive Substance (NPS).  Substances commonly known as Legal Highs are posing a significant risk in our communities. These drugs are designed to mimic the effects of other illegal drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Although they are known as Legal Highs, this can be a misleading title. Many of these produced substances are already under the control of the misuse of drugs act but by naming them as Legal Highs, many young people believe that are safe to use and by being legal they are not as harmful as illegal substances. This is far from true.

The issue of Legal Highs has been previously raised in Full Council, back in December 2014, we know that many of you are already concerned about the problems they pose here in Oldham. It was resolved previously that further consultation work needed to be undertaken by Health and Wellbeing and it is encouraging to see that this is well underway.

NPS are more commonly manufactured in China and to a lesser extent, India. They are mainly imported into this country via mail and fast parcel services. The home office have found that they are then mainly distributed to users via friends, drug dealers,  headshops and other retail outlets including garages, newsagents and takeaways. New substances appear rapidly on the market often replacing those substances that have been banned. Just a small change in the chemical ingredients can create a new substance that is not yet under control of the misuse of drugs act.

Legal Highs are easily accessible; you may have seen the evidence of them lying in the streets; the silver bullet type canisters that hold Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) or little packets such as these. Although there are many different ‘brands’ of NPS they mainly fall into 5 main groups:

·       Stimulant type drugs - that mimic substances like amphetamines, cocaine and ecstasy

·       Downers/Tranquillisers - that mimic various sedative drugs or opioid drugs

·       Hallucinogenic - that mimic substances like LSD

·       Dissociative drugs - these mimic substances like ketamine and PCP

·       And finally Synthetic Cannaboids  - that mimic the effects of cannabis

People take these substances for many of the same reasons people use other drugs because they enjoy the effects, they offer escapism, relaxation, shared social experiences and adventure and with NPS many people believe that they are legal which adds to the attraction.

There is little information available about the long term effects of NPS but short term use risks include:

·       Overdose or seizures that can and have resulted in death

·       Temporary psychotic states

·       Unpredictable behaviour

·       Sudden increase of decrease in heart rate, breathing rate and body temperature

·       Hallucinations

·       Vomiting

·       Confusion and possible aggressive behaviour

·       Feeling suicidal

·       Physical and psychological dependency

I think we can all see that these are dangerous substances because of the health problems they create but we need to look at the wider implications too.

 They can create social problems such as an increase in criminal activity, the breakdown of relationships,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 10.

Members of the Youth Council spoke on the following Motion:

“New Psychoactive Substance (NPS). Substances commonly known as Legal Highs are posing a significant risk in our communities. These drugs are designed to mimic the effects of other illegal drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Although they are known as Legal Highs, this can be a misleading title. Many of these produced substances are already under the control of the misuse of drugs act but by naming them as Legal Highs, many young people believe that are safe to use and by being legal they are not as harmful as illegal substances. This is far from true.

The issue of Legal Highs has been previously raised in Full Council, back in December 2014, we know that many of you are already concerned about the problems they pose here in Oldham. It was resolved previously that further consultation work needed to be undertaken by Health and Wellbeing and it is encouraging to see that this is well underway.

NPS are more commonly manufactured in China and to a lesser extent, India. They are mainly imported into this country via mail and fast parcel services. The home office have found that they are then mainly distributed to users via friends, drug dealers, headshops and other retail outlets including garages, newsagents and takeaways. New substances appear rapidly on the market often replacing those substances that have been banned. Just a small change in the chemical ingredients can create a new substance that is not yet under control of the misuse of drugs act.

Legal Highs are easily accessible; you may have seen the evidence of them lying in the streets; the silver bullet type canisters that hold Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) or little packets such as these. Although there are many different ‘brands’ of NPS they mainly fall into 5 main groups:

·       Stimulant type drugs - that mimic substances like amphetamines, cocaine and ecstasy

·       Downers/Tranquillisers - that mimic various sedative drugs or opioid drugs

·       Hallucinogenic - that mimic substances like LSD

·       Dissociative drugs - these mimic substances like ketamine and PCP

·       And finally Synthetic Cannaboids - that mimic the effects of cannabis

People take these substances for many of the same reasons people use other drugs because they enjoy the effects, they offer escapism, relaxation, shared social experiences and adventure and with NPS many people believe that they are legal which adds to the attraction.

There is little information available about the long term effects of NPS but short term use risks include:

·       Overdose or seizures that can and have resulted in death

·       Temporary psychotic states

·       Unpredictable behaviour

·       Sudden increase of decrease in heart rate, breathing rate and body temperature

·       Hallucinations

·       Vomiting

·       Confusion and possible aggressive behaviour

·       Feeling suicidal

·       Physical and psychological dependency

I think we can all see that these are dangerous substances because of the health problems they create but we need to look at the wider implications too.

They can create social problems such as an increase in criminal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following questions:

1.       Talk Talk Cyber Attack

“The Leader will be aware of the cyber-attack conducted on 21^st October against one of Britain’s biggest internet service providers, Talk Talk.

As a consequence of this attack, a significant amount of individual customer data was stolen, including bank account numbers, sort codes, credit and debit card details, dates of birth and the names, email addresses and phone numbers of customers.

To their credit, according to a spokesperson from the Metropolitan Police Cyber Crime Unit: "TalkTalk have done everything right in bringing this matter to our attention as soon as possible,” and they are co-operating fully with an ongoing criminal investigation, which has now led to an arrest.

Nonetheless this news will still be very worrying for our residents who pay their bills with the Council electronically on-line or who choose to pay via a debit or credit card.

What information can the Leader provide us about the impact, if any, of the Talk Talk attack on the Council’s operations and its customers – the residents of this borough – and what reassurance can he provide them that the Council has the most rigorous safeguards in place to keep the personal and payment details of our residents safe from prying eyes?”

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, responded that he would consult with officers and provide a written response. The Council had secure servers and, when it took payments, those details were encrypted to make sure they could not be viewed. Cyber terrorists would try to circumnavigate the system on a regular basis so it was kept under constant review. The Council was aware of breaches such as Talk Talk and the government breaches and had learned from them, particularly as a public agency that took payments.

2.       Conservative threat to Generation Oldham

“My second question concerns a clear and present danger to a plan that has enjoyed cross-party support in this Chamber – namely the proposal to generate our own green energy through the Generation Oldham project.

The Leader may be aware that the new Tory Government has recently proposed changes that will make it difficult if not impossible to continue to develop community owned renewable energy schemes.

When the Liberal Democrats controlled the Department of Energy and Climate Change whilst in coalition, a favourable regime was put in place to provide a generous subsidy by the payment of a Feed in Tariff (or FIT) to community energy projects.

As a result over 5,500 community energy projects were established over the lifetime of the Coalition Government – making a major contribution to our country’s energy needs without creating a carbon footprint.

The new Government intends to unravel this regime by cutting the FIT by up to 90% in January 2016. Under their proposals FIT payments to roof mounted solar schemes will be reduced from 12.47p for every kilowatt hour of electricity they produce to 1.63p.

I have recently responded – as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

(time limit 20 minutes):-

a) 24^th August 2015

b) 21^st September 2015

The Cabinet Minutes for the meetings held on 24^th August 2015 and 21^st September 2015 were submitted. The Mayor reminded the meeting that, as previously agreed by Council, the last eight minutes of this section would be reserved for observations on responses received and responses to observations.

Questions were raised by the following Councillors on the Cabinet Minutes as detailed below:

Councillor McCann – Cabinet meeting – 21^st September, Item 10, page 45, Oldham Coliseum Theatre and Heritage Centre, accepting that there may be a commercial sensitivity factor in the reply, could the relevant Cabinet Member advise him of any major revisions or changes that were required, and confirm that financial controls would remain at a high and strict level as they had been with other schemes? Would risk evaluations remain at a high professional level? He accepted this was long-term project and wished for further guidance given the number of changes that seemed to be happening.

Councillor McMahon advised that there had been no material changes. Numbers had moved around, partly because of a significant third-party donation that had been taken into account. The report was largely about scheduling because the funding required that the Council moved quickly on the Heritage Centre element, which meant the fund-raising period for the Coliseum Theatre element would not be sufficient to raise the funding required. The project had therefore been separated into phases. The first phase was to get the Heritage Centre built with the money that had been gifted and to then fund-raise to allow the Theatre to be built. There would also be an opportunity to look at the wider town centre as there had been buildings vacated with no plans for their future use that had deteriorated quickly. It had been agreed with Heritage England, the Arts Council and Heritage Lottery that the project would be widened to consider heritage assets across the town centre. What the Council wanted to do was work with private building owners as well as with buildings in its ownership, to make sure there was a viable use for them going forward. This was an exciting time where the Council was confident to invest in flagship schemes, like the old Town Hall, Princes Gate and the Heritage Centre, and there were a number of private investors that wanted to invest in Oldham. He would soon being forward plans that would deal with the Conservative Club. He would look to do more work with the private sector and with investors outside the Council to ensure that the heritage buildings that were found other uses. It was not viable for the Council to do this, with its budget cut so significantly.

He indicated that he would be happy, where matters were commercially confidential, to meet privately with Members of other parties to go through them.

Councillor Blyth – Cabinet meeting – 21^st September, Item 10, page 45, Oldham Coliseum Theatre and Heritage Centre, what will happen to the old Theatre? Historically it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Moores to MOVE and Councillor Roberts to SECOND:

This Council is aware that Market Street in Shaw has been hosting the weekly Shaw Market, on a trial basis since the 27^th August 2015. During the period of the trial Council Officers have consulted with market traders, local businesses, market users and the wider public this information was then collated and a report prepared for a Licensing Panel scheduled for Monday 2^nd November 2015.

This Council welcomes the success of the Shaw Market trial with its positive impact on both the market and surrounding area including the increased demand for stalls on the market, and an increase in footfall on Market Street.

The Council notes that TfGM, and OMBC Highways Department have reported that there has been no disruptive impact on traffic movements in the area.

This Council resolves to work with the businesses located on Market Street, the market traders and the local community in supporting and maintaining a market provision in Shaw that will benefit the local and wider community.

Motion 2

Councillor Chadderton to MOVE and Councillor S Bashforth to SECOND:

This Council notes with disappointment the passing of the Trade Union Bill at its second reading in parliament on 14 September 2015.
This Council believes that the Bill represents the most vicious attack on Trade Unions in over 30 years by introducing measures that will make it more difficult for employees to stand up for and defend their rights at work.
Amongst other things the passing of the Bill will introduce:
• The removal of the ability of public sector employees to have Trade Union subscriptions deducted from their salaries.
• A requirement for unions to notify police if they intend to discuss a strike on social media.
• A requirement for police to be notified 14 days in advance of a strike if striking workers intend to use placards or loudspeakers on a picket line.
• The appointment of a ‘picket supervisor’ for each picket who will be required to wear an armband and give their name and contact details to the police and their employer.
• A minimum turnout threshold of 50% in ballots for strike action.
This Council further notes that human rights groups Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights have all condemned the Bill as an attack on the basic right to protest.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has branded this law to be an 'outdated response that could have potentially counterproductive consequences'. 
In Oldham we recognise the importance of Trade Unions and the work they do representing their members. We have a good track record in employee relations such as collective agreement of single status work. We recognise the importance of liaising with our Trade Unions colleagues and of early engagement.

Council therefore resolves to:
• Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Business,  Innovation and Skills, Sajid Javid MP on behalf  ...  view the full agenda text for item 13.

Motion 1

Councillor Moores MOVED and Councillor Roberts SECONDED:

“This Council is aware that Market Street in Shaw has been hosting the weekly Shaw Market, on a trial basis since the 27^th August 2015. During the period of the trial Council Officers have consulted with market traders, local businesses, market users and the wider public this information was then collated and a report prepared for a Licensing Panel scheduled for Monday 2^nd November 2015.

This Council welcomes the success of the Shaw Market trial with its positive impact on both the market and surrounding area including the increased demand for stalls on the market, and an increase in footfall on Market Street.

The Council notes that TfGM, and OMBC Highways Department have reported that there has been no disruptive impact on traffic movements in the area.

This Council resolves to work with the businesses located on Market Street, the market traders and the local community in supporting and maintaining a market provision in Shaw that will benefit the local and wider community”.

AMENDMENT

Councillor Gloster MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED

“Insert new second paragraph to follow ‘Monday 2nd November 2015’ as follows:

‘Council notes that local elected members are keen to work with the Administration and Council officers to find a solution that guarantees the continued viability of Shaw Market, and regrets the friction that has arisen from the Administration rejecting consultation on the option to  redevelop and promote the market on its existing historic site (the so called ‘staying put’ position’).’

Insert in the now third paragraph after ‘Market Street’ a new sentence as follows:

‘Whilst Council welcomes the significant additional spend on free events, publicity, advertising, questionnaires and staff to promote the on-street market, it regrets that this same effort was not made previously to ensure the success of the Market on its historic site’.

The motion as amended to read:

This Council is aware that Market Street in Shaw has been hosting the weekly Shaw Market, on a trial basis since the 27th August 2015. During the period of the trial Council Officers have consulted with market traders, local businesses, market users and the wider public this information was then collated and a report prepared for a Licensing Panel scheduled for Monday 2nd November 2015.

Council notes that local elected members are keen to work with the Administration and Council officers to find a solution that guarantees the continued viability of Shaw Market, and regrets the friction that has arisen from the Administration rejecting consultation on the option to  redevelop and promote the market on its existing historic site (the so called ‘staying put’ position’).

This Council welcomes the success of the Shaw Market trial with its positive impact on both the market and surrounding area including the increased demand for stalls on the market, and an increase in footfall on Market Street. Whilst Council welcomes the significant additional spend on free events, publicity, advertising, questionnaires and staff to promote the on-street market, it regrets  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Harkness to MOVE and Councillor Williamson to SECOND:

This Council notes that:

·       2^nd – 6^th November 2015 is National School Meals week

·       9,800 pupils in reception, year one and two classes in the Oldham borough became entitled to universal free school meals from September 2014

·       Pilots conducted by the Departments of Education and Health in 2009 found that the provision of universal free school meals led to improvements in the concentration, academic performance and behaviour of pupils

·       Four in every 10 children living in poverty do not currently qualify for free school meals; yet in many cases a free school meal may represent the only hot meal that a child receives in a day

·       Extending universal free school meals to all seven to eleven year olds will benefit 13,100 children in the Oldham borough, 10,000 more than currently receive free school meals, and 1.9 million children in the UK

·       This was a recommendation of the School Food Plan presented to government by John Vincent and Henry Dimbleby

This Council believes that:

·       Government should extend the provision of universal free school meals to all seven to eleven year olds, starting in the most deprived areas, during the lifetime of this current Parliament

·       This expansion should be funded by Government with adequate capital investment and ongoing revenue support

Council therefore resolves to:

·       Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan MP, outlining this Council’s position on this issue

·       Ask the Chief Executive to write to the three MPs for the borough asking them to also support this position

·       Ask the Leader and the Leaders of the Main and Minority Opposition Groups to seek the support of this position from their respective political groups within the Local Government Association

Motion 2

Councillor Murphy to MOVE and Councillor McCann to SECOND:

This Council notes that:

·       The demand for affordable homes in the Oldham borough will continue to increase

·       The availability of social housing is under further threat from a Conservative Government intent on extending the ‘right to buy’ to housing association tenants, on pressurizing social landlords to sell off their housing stock, and on imposing rent reductions

·       With powers from the 2011 Localism Act and the 2000 Local Government Act, Councils can generate income and build affordable homes, whether for sale or for rent

·       Some councils, such as Sutton, have established a wholly-owned housing development company to build homes for sale at affordable prices or to let at social or market rents

Council resolves to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board and the Strategic Housing Partnership Board to investigate the merits of:

·       Setting up a Council wholly-owned housing development company

·       Making use of reforms in the use of the Housing Revenue Account and prudential borrowing powers to finance house building by the new company

·       Accessing finance via the new LG Develop scheme recently established by the Local Government Association 

·       Identifying, with partners (such as  ...  view the full agenda text for item 14.

Motion 1

Councillor Harkness MOVED and Councillor Williamson SECONDED:

“This Council notes that:

·       2^nd – 6^th November 2015 is National School Meals week

·     9,800 pupils in reception, year one and two classes in the Oldham borough became entitled to universal free school meals from September 2014

·       Pilots conducted by the Departments of Education and Health in 2009 found that the provision of universal free school meals led to improvements in the concentration, academic performance and behaviour of pupils

·       Four in every 10 children living in poverty do not currently qualify for free school meals; yet in many cases a free school meal may represent the only hot meal that a child receives in a day

·       Extending universal free school meals to all seven to eleven year olds will benefit 13,100 children in the Oldham borough, 10,000 more than currently receive free school meals, and 1.9 million children in the UK

·       This was a recommendation of the School Food Plan presented to government by John Vincent and Henry Dimbleby

This Council believes that:

·         Government should extend the provision of universal free school meals to all seven to eleven year olds, starting in the most deprived areas, during the lifetime of this current Parliament

·       This expansion should be funded by Government with adequate capital investment and ongoing revenue support

Council therefore resolves to:

·         Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt. Hon. Nicky Morgan MP, outlining this Council’s position on this issue

·         Ask the Chief Executive to write to the three MPs for the borough asking them to also support this position

·         Ask the Leader and the Leaders of the Main and Minority Opposition Groups to seek the support of this position from their respective political groups within the Local Government Association”

On being put to the VOTE, the meeting UNANIMOUSLY voted IN FAVOUR of the MOTION, which was therefore CARRIED.

Motion 2

Councillor Murphy MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDED:

“This Council notes that:

·       The demand for affordable homes in the Oldham borough will continue to increase

·       The availability of social housing is under further threat from a Conservative Government intent on extending the ‘right to buy’ to housing association tenants, on pressurizing social landlords to sell off their housing stock, and on imposing rent reductions

·       With powers from the 2011 Localism Act and the 2000 Local Government Act, Councils can generate income and build affordable homes, whether for sale or for rent

·       Some councils, such as Sutton, have established a wholly-owned housing development company to build homes for sale at affordable prices or to let at social or market rents

Council resolves to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board and the Strategic Housing Partnership Board to investigate the merits of:

·       Setting up a Council wholly-owned housing development company

·       Making use of reforms in the use of the Housing Revenue Account and prudential borrowing powers to finance house building by the new company

·       Accessing finance via the new LG Develop scheme recently established  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

(time limit 8 minutes):-

Minutes of the Joint Authorities were submitted as follows:

There were no questions or observations.

RESOLVED that:

The minutes of the Joint Authorities as detailed in the report be noted.

(time limit 7 minutes)

Minutes of the Partnership Meetings were submitted as follows:

There were no questions or observations.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Partnerships as detailed in the report be noted.

The Council gave consideration to a report of the Director of Finance which sought approval of the Council Tax Reduction scheme 2016/17 as detailed at Appendix 1 of the report.

Each year a collection authority must formally consider revising its Council Tax reduction scheme and ensure there is consultation on a proposed scheme. The Council had made a change to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2015/16 that had increased the maximum reduction awardable from 80% of the Band A rate of Council Tax to 85%. That had meant an extra £53.43 per year for someone who was entitled to the maximum award and this was agreed by Full Council in December 2014.

The Council was informed that the current scheme had only been in place since 1st April 2015 and it was difficult to estimate what the exact percentage collection rate might be at year end. An early indication was that the collection rate for the extra amount billed in 2015/16 would be higher than originally estimated at between 70% and 75%, however this could change in the remainder of the year.

The Council was informed that another issue to be considered was estimating the financial impact of the new government proposals for welfare and tax reform on Oldham. It was highly likely that demand on the scheme would rise next year, as benefit freezes and reductions in tax credits would mean reducing incomes for sizeable numbers of Oldham residents.

As the scheme had been changed for 2015/16 and, having considering the current financial position of the Council, it was not proposed to change the threshold level. If no change was made, the maximum amount of reduction available would remain at 85% of a Band A rate of Council Tax.

Options/Alternatives considered:

Option 1: Leave the current Council Tax reduction scheme unchanged from 2016 onwards.

Option 2: Change the level of Council Tax Reduction.

Councillor Jabbar MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Chadderton.

RESOLVED that:

1.       Option 2 be agreed and the Council implement a Council Tax Reduction Scheme from 1^st April 2015 for all applicants of working age which would:

·                 Increase the maximum amount of reduction available to 85% of a Band A rate of Council Tax.

·                 Maintain other changes introduced in the 2014/15 Oldham Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

2.               The scheme at Appendix 2 of the report would be subject to any changes resulting from prescribed requirements issued by the Secretary of State under paragraph 2(8) of Schedule 1A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and any changes from time to time to the figures prescribed by central government for welfare benefit purposes.

Consideration was given to a report of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board which outlined the nature and extent of the work that had been undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Board during the last twelve months. The report provided a summary of the various issues that had been examined by the Board and the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee.

The Mayor thanked Councillor McLaren, Chair of the Board, for all the excellent work that had been undertaken.

Councillor McLaren MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Wrigglesworth.

RESOLVED that the report be approved.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Legal Services which set out the draft calendar of Meetings for the 2016/17 municipal years.

Councillor McMahon MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Sykes.

RESOLVED that:-

1. The current version of the Council’s calendar of meetings for 2016/17 be approved, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

2. Approval of any outstanding dates to be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation Group Leaders

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Policy and Governance that was part of a quarterly series of topical updates and dashboards, demonstrating the impact of welfare reform in Oldham.

The report identified the key proposals, and estimates, where possible, and the likely impacts on Oldham, both in terms of the financial impacts on the borough, and on the numbers impacted.

Drawing upon the latest available national and local research, data and information, the report showed an estimated cumulative loss to Oldham through the changes over the next 4 years of over £58m. The worst affected 2000 families in Oldham stood to lose, on average, more than £3,800 per year as a result of the reforms.

Councillor Jabbar MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Chadderton.

RESOLVED that:- the indicative future timetable for quarterly topical welfare reform reports be approved.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Legal Services that reported that the Health and Wellbeing Board, at its meeting on 15^th September 2015, commended to Council that the Chief Executive (or nominated representative) of Oldham Community Leisure become a member of the Health and Wellbeing Board and be given voting rights as a member of the Board.

Councillor McMahon MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Sykes.

RESOLVED that:- the Council agreed to increase the membership of the Health and Wellbeing Board to include the Chief Executive (or nominated representative) of Oldham Community Leisure and agreed that the Chief Executive Oldham Community Leisure (or nominated representative) be given voting rights.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Legal Services which informed members of actions that had been taken following previous Council meetings and provided feedback on other issues raised at the meeting.

Councillor McMahon MOVED the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Sykes.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.