(15 minutes for public questions and 25 minutes for Councillor questions)
Minutes:
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 Wayne Ankers via Twitter:
“Could cllrs look at introducing traffic calming or one way system on chamber road in Shaw. Cars too fast and too many”.
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that various possibilities had been investigated previously for Chamber Road, none of which were supported at this time. Officers would carry out a review, to identify if there had been any change to the use of the road since the previous investigations, to inform future decisions.
2. Question from Joanne Keight via Twitter:
“In light of current & continuous staff cuts -will there be a review of the number of councillors that represent each ward?”
Councillor Arooj Shah, Cabinet Member for Performance and Corporate Governance responded that the Council had considered a proposal to reduce the number of councillors at a recent budget meeting. The Council considered that, for a borough with our population, there would be a democratic deficit if a reduction was introduced. The Council was not aware of any similarly sized Greater Manchester metropolitan authorities who were proceeding with a proposed reduction. If the Council agreed to reduce the numbers, the matter was not solely in the Council’s control. A review would be required to be carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission, who would consider and identify the appropriate number of Councillors for each ward.
3. Question from sarahlawstudent via Twitter:
“I'd like to ask whether the council will be joining other LAs in calling on the PM to support additional refugees.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives responded that the Leader of the Council would be making a statement on this issue later in the meeting as an item of urgent business.
The Borough had a proud history of supporting people seeking asylum from persecution, and continued to do so. There were almost 700 asylum seekers living in Oldham, some of whom were from Syria. The Council was committed to playing its part in enabling more asylum seekers to find refuge in Britain in response to the current humanitarian crisis, but it was essential that the government recognised help was needed make this happen by reforming the asylum system. Local services needed to be properly resourced to meet the costs of this and every part of the country needed to shoulder the responsibility for supporting people seeking asylum. The distribution was not equal across the country.
Local communities also had a part to play. In line with its co-operative values, the Council had put information on the Council’s website to advise residents where donations could be made in support of the humanitarian effort, or how they could volunteer with organisations which supported asylum seekers and refugees in Oldham. In doing so, we were able to work together to make Oldham a borough of sanctuary for people in desperate need.
4. Question from Pauline Brown via Facebook:
“I would like to know why the residents on MEDWAY RD HOLLINWOOD,have not had a letter or any sort of communication about the DURBAN MILL, being demolished.When the trendsetter was being demolished ,we went to Lyndhurst School, to view the plans, nothing has been said about the land on DURBAN MILL site. Also i had to recarpet my home because of the dirt, brick dust etc, i will NOT be doing this again out of my own pocket!!! AWAITING A REPLY”
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that proposals for demolition were normally regarded as ‘permitted development’, subject to compliance with the conditions contained within the regulations. The regulations required only that the applicant displayed a site notice on or near the land for not less than 21 days (within the 28-day process) and this notice was erected on 7 July 2015. The application was submitted on 7 July 2015 and Prior Approval was granted on 4 August 2015.
The Local Planning Authority had assessed the information provided in respect of the method of demolition and restoration of the site. Insofar as dust mitigation measures were concerned, the method statement explained that a fine water spray would be used to minimise airborne dust along with protective sheeting to help contain dust and light debris.
It was inevitable that there would be disruption caused by the demolition of the building causing short-term issues. However, the Local Planning Authority was satisfied that the method statement minimised the risk of any significant disruption, though it could not control the conduct of the contractors during the works.
Councillor Hibbert made a commitment to ask officers to liaise with the applicant and to inform them that issues have been raised by residents.
5. Question from Bob Hampson via email
“What are the chances of erecting traffic lights at the top of Burnley Lane where it meets the roundabout? It is so dangerous trying to enter the roundabout. I have asked this question previously but never had any response”.
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that half this roundabout was currently signalised. The accident level at this specific section of the roundabout was low and the accidents which had been recorded were not caused by vehicles travelling on the roundabout. The arrangements on this roundabout were constantly being reviewed, and the road markings had been recently altered to improve the traffic movement. Any further changes to the signalisation of this roundabout would have involved liaison with Highways England, due to the potential impact on trunk road and motorway.
6. Question from Mr Fitzpatrick via email.
“I wish to ask the following question at the next Council Meeting;
When will Cllr Jim McMahon come clean about his regeneration schemes. When will he tell Oldham residents that the arts council have refused to make a grant to the scheme to put the Oldham Coliseum Theatre in the old Library, when will he admit that he has no private sector funding for a hotel next to the QE hall. When will he accept that the scheme to build a multiplex cinema in the Old Town hall at a cost in excess of £36 million is a massive white elephant that will have to be paid for by future generations of Oldham Taxpayers. When will take down the propaganda billboards, promising schemes that he knows he can't deliver?”
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked his question.
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that this was the same question that had been asked previously and the response had not changed. He did not accept the premise of the question in relation to these schemes, which were critical to both the regeneration of the Borough and to the people of Oldham.
7. Question from Janet Brown via Twitter
“How does somebody with no money in the bank 0 income, no money for gas & Electric no food, pay 20% council tax? Please answer”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and HR, responded that Oldham Council had been forced to make difficult choices about how to pay for services because of the reductions the government had made in public spending. This meant that Oldham had to introduce a Local Council Tax Reduction scheme that was affordable but still enabled the Council to continue to support residents. As a result, from April 2015 the Council introduced a maximum award of 85% of a Band A charge. The Council strongly encouraged residents struggling to pay their Council Tax to contact the Council Tax team straight away to discuss their issues, as they could be able to offer an alternative payment arrangement. The Council was aware that many people in the Borough were experiencing financial difficulties and provided free benefits advice to residents through its Welfare Rights, Benefits and Personal budgeting support services. The service could be contacted on 0161 770 6633.
9. Question from dmonkey via email
“Please can Oldham Council ensure that FCHO have kept to their "Offer document" promises as many customer feel they have not for example: No customer involvement in many areas of Oldham, no walkabouts or interaction with housing officers. Disabled and elderly customers being forced to move away from their homes to get adaptations or manage with no adaptations. When are FCHO going to put the customer "in the heart of everything they do" as was promised at the transfer of council housing to FCHO.”
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that he was surprised to hear how the resident felt about First Choice Homes Oldham. He knew that First Choice Homes had invested a great deal of time and resources in customer involvement and would ask them to contact the resident to discuss their specific issues. In terms of adaptations for older and disabled people, they had spent over £1M a year since the housing stock transfer in 2011. He reassured Members and residents that First Choice Homes had met and, in many cases, exceeded their Offer Document promises ahead of time.
Councillor
Hibbert indicated that he had a more-detailed response and this
would be forwarded to the questioner the day after the
meeting.
9. Question from Andrea Greenwood via email:
“As there is a council meeting tomorrow evening (I was going to tweet my concerns with the council) please can you give me answers and solutions to the following concerns I have. Whilst I am fully aware certain road improvements have to take place I have concerns with BULCOTE lane.
1. My young son attends St Joseph's in Shaw - this Closure has enforced a different route as a lower dingle resident which has added an extra 40 - 50 minutes travelling time if I am lucky to my day (I also work full time in Tameside) this together with the additional cost of fuel over a period of 16 weeks is a financial burden that is not my choice.
2. My son has a number of debilitating illnesses and if I required the emergency services I am concerned they wouldnt arrive on time.
3. Who on earth in your planning department approved a 16 week major link road closure just as schools return for the autumn term. Your decision makers are accountable and this is a ludicrous decision when you could have started the works at the end of July - this has nothing to do with budgets as your already part way through a financial year.
4. Why do you not authorise access only for residents at commuting times?
5. How do I claim my travel expenses back from you?
6. The residents were of the understanding that this was a road widening scheme and it appears to be retaining wall work.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.”
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that he was sorry to hear about the family’s difficulties. As with all Highway Improvement Schemes, the emergency services had access through the works at all times throughout the closure. For this scheme, it was always planned that it would be carried out across the six week holiday but the land acquisition to enable the road widening was not completed in time for this to happen. The Council had a duty of care to maintain a safe highway. Unfortunately, this would always result in road closures and disruption to all road users, but the Council would endeavour to ensure this was minimised wherever possible.
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
The Mayor reminded Members that the Council had previously agreed that, questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council. The following questions were submitted by Councillors on Ward or District Matters: (25 mins)
1. Councillor Toor to Councillor Hibbert
“Parking around Medlock Valley Primary School is a major issue and poses a potential hazard for pupils being dropped off & picked up by parents in their cars. Can the Executive Member look into making available the vacant land opposite the entrance to the school for the purpose of turning it into a car park.”
Councillor Hibbert responded he would like like to thank Cllr Toor for bringing this to his attention. Members would appreciate parking around schools was a problem across the Borough and the Council was always looking at ways to reduce pressure at peak times with schools and parents. He would ask colleagues to look at the possibility and suitability of using the site for temporary parking and ensure a response was sent to Cllr Toor in the next week.
2. Councillor Roberts to Councillor Hibbert
“I would like to thank Cllr Brownridge for her response to my question at the July Council Meeting in regard to the condition of the footpaths in Royton Cemetery. However Cemetery Road, which I also enquired about, is a public highway. Please could the relevant Cabinet Member confirm when this road, used by residents and those using or visiting the cemetery, will be resurfaced?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that all capital funding for the 2015-16 financial year had been fully allocated and unfortunately Cemetery Road was not awarded funding at that time. It would remain on the Unclassified Network resurfacing list until relevant funding became available. In the meantime, an inspection had been arranged to ensure that any significant-sized defects were removed. Due to Cemetery Road being lined with mature trees, increased costs would be incurred due to the care required for construction around them. Local people would not want the trees removed.
3. Councillor Fielding to Councillor Hibbert
“There is a longstanding problem with pigeons roosting under the Hardman Lane Metrolink Bridge in Failsworth and fouling the pavement with their droppings. Prior to the rail lines' conversion to metrolink, a net spanned the entirety of the underside of the bridge preventing this problem; this was removed during the conversion works and has not been replaced. Could the council please use it's influence to make metrolink reinstate the net? So far, my enquiries and lobbying have fallen on deaf ears.”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he had raised this issue with the Metrolink Director at Transport for Greater Manchester, who had advised that, as part of the Metrolink works, some areas were fitted with deterrent spikes and further netting works were carried out by the contractor. He had confirmed that they would now carry out a further review to ascertain if any measures needed to be taken at this location. He would ensure that the review was carried out in the next 2 weeks and recommendations would be brought forward regarding any further measures to be taken.
4. Councillor Williamson to Councillor Brownridge
“The Leader will doubtless be aware that Shaw and Crompton Ward Councillors received, in early August, a briefing note relating to the Royton Leisure Centre opening.
The briefing note was emailed by our Marketing Department - it contained the bombshell that “Existing members of the Shaw gym will also be contacted and informed that the facility will close”.
This news completely contradicts the reassurances that ward councillors have consistently been given by the Administration that whilst the pool would close, the gym would remain open.
Can the Leader tell me when the decision was first taken to close the gym in Shaw and – given the ill-feeling and controversy surrounding the decision by this Administration to relocate all of Shaw’s community leisure facilities to Royton - can he tell me why ward councillors were not offered the courtesy of a face-to-face meeting to discuss the rationale behind this decision, rather than merely an impersonal briefing note?”
Councillor Brownridge responded that the Council undertook an independent review of leisure services in Oldham during Winter 2010/11, which considered the current provision across all sectors and provided a clear evidence base, and supply and demand analysis, to support the Council’s need to reconfigure the leisure estate in Oldham, in order to both reduce the revenue burden on the Council and improve the leisure offer to the public. The review supported the view that an overall leisure estate of fewer, higher quality public sector facilities, well distributed across the Borough, with a Town Centre facility at its heart, together with the private and voluntary sector provision, would be a realistic way forward.
In March 2012, Cabinet approved a report entitled Leisure Estate - Approval of Outline Business Case. The report approved the provision of two new facilities within Oldham and Royton. In addition it approved the closure of a number of facilities including Crompton Pool and Fitness Centre. At that time the Council stated its ambition to retain the current Crompton pool and fitness facility until the new pool at Royton opened. It was unable to keep the pool open but had managed to keep the gym open. When the new Royton Leisure Centre opened later this month the gym will close, as set out in the original reports.
5. Councillor Garry to Councillor Brownridge
“At the last meeting of the Failsworth and Hollinwood District Executive, Failsworth West Ward decided to make an allocation of £6000 towards street tree planting. Labour Councillors featured this in their most recent local newsletter and have since been inundated with enquiries from residents who would like trees planted on their streets.
It is clear that the £6000 we have allocated will not be enough to meet the demands of residents for planting and so can Council commit to match fund our allocation and increase the impact of this popular idea?”
Councillor Brownridge responded that the Council had introduced the ‘Green Dividend’ scheme, where a borough-wide budget of £100K for 2015/6 & 2016/17 had been made available. This would give the opportunity for community groups to apply for funding for additional trees to be planted within their community. Bids were being coordinated through Environmental Services and a residents/application pack would shortly be sent out to those who had expressed an interest. A Ward Councillor briefing pack would also be available to all Councillors.
6. Councillor Mushtaq to Councillor Hibbert
“I have had and continue to receive numerous questions regarding the selective licensing scheme which has been and is being implemented in parts of the borough including Alexandra. The queries include a lot of technical questions around payments for example. However the broader theme seems to be 'what practical protection will landlords and their properties receive from bad or 'rogue' tenants? Can the relevant Cabinet Member please provide some information?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he was grateful for the opportunity to dispel some of the myths and address some of the concerns about the scheme. Landlords would receive training and information which would ensure that they were equipped to prevent bad or rogue tenants from taking a tenancy in their properties. This included:
The Council was determined to deal with the increased number of problems caused by a minority of landlords.
7. Councillor Qumer to Councillor Hibbert
“I welcome the highways improvements in St Marys and across Oldham could the relevant Cabinet Member please advise when the work will be complete.”
Councillor Hibbert responded that there was currently increased activity in St Mary’s due to integration of Metrolink and significant development works around the Town Centre, including the Leisure Centre. Other significant highway improvement works included the Gateway Corridor programme to implement the 24 hour repair promise. However, the maintenance of the highway was an ongoing process and would continue beyond the development work, albeit on a reduced level.
8. Councillor Harkness to Councillor Hibbert
“I would like to thank Cllr Hibbert and the relevant officers for attending the recent meeting to consult the public about the traffic issues arising in Dobcross as a result of the new school. It was good that the meeting remained focused on the advertised purpose of the meeting - traffic - rather than straying into questions related to the site as some in the protest group wished. There are other opportunities and forums more appropriate for this.
I felt overall that this meeting was very positive and even-handed in that it gave residents the opportunity to raise any traffic questions or concerns and gave the officers and elected members an opportunity to respond professionally and courteously and to acknowledge genuine issues that must be addressed.
I feel that we have now together begun to identify the engineering and management solutions that are needed to make traffic to and from the school work within the wider community. This dialogue has to continue.
Can I therefore ask the Cabinet Member to reassure me that this dialogue will continue with ward members and with my constituents and that we shall receive regular updates as the project progresses?”
Councillor Hibbert thanked Councillor Harkness for his support and responded that he was always happy to work with the local people and their Councillors. There was no need to ask the question, as Councillor Harkness knew the answer was yes.
9. Councillor G Alexander to Councillor Hibbert
“Why are roads being closed for over a week and although signage has been put in place works have not commenced. This causes unnecessary disruption especially when the roads are being closed for 17 weeks.”
Councillor Hibbert responded that non-disruptive carriageway works were due to commence on Bullcote Lane as soon as the road was closed and the diversion route set up. Unfortunately, the contractor had not started these works as per the agreed programme. However, as soon as the Council were notified that works had not commenced, the road was reopened to minimise further disruption. The cost of the abortive Traffic Management would be borne by the contractor and the issue would be reflected in the Contractor’s Key Performance Indicators, affecting future work opportunities.
10. Councillor S Bashforth to Councillor Brownridge
“I am working with a Royton resident Mr Jeff Vernon, to open a Branch of the Royal British Legion in Royton. We have a venue and the Royton Councillors are fully behind the scheme and will help support Mr Vernon to get a new Royton branch up and running. We are looking to open the branch after this November’s remembrance ceremony in Royton and will be inviting Roytoners to join us for light refreshments and to ask questions about the RBL and hopefully sign up to join. Could I ask the relevant Cabinet Member to lend us advice and support in this project?”
Councillor Brownridge responded that the answer was yes.
11. Councillor M Bashforth to Councillor Hibbert
“After the welcome resurfacing works in Royton could the relevant Cabinet Member reassure our residents that all white lines and other road markings are fully reinstated, together with works to ensure manholes and grids are properly finished off before the works are accepted by Highways?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that approximately 10 to 14 days after the treatment had been laid, the surface would be swept to remove the excess chippings and the road markings applied. Small areas of the road marking element would take slightly longer. The replacement of the ironwork was a slower process and was carried out under a separate programme, which could take up to 3 months following the completion of the surfacing due to the sheer volume.
12. Councillor A Alexander to Councillor Brownridge
“Do we have any more information about the Gardening Hub that was supposed to be happening at Lees Park? An answer from the Cabinet Member may prevent the spread of more misinformation about the Park.”
Councillor Brownridge responded she apologised the work had taken so long. It should not have done and the lesson would be learned for the future. The growing hub at Lees Park was definitely still going ahead (subject to the usual formalities) and was currently subject to an advertisement for the change of use from a bowling green to a growing hub. The Council was unable to progress this any further until the above had been concluded.
13 Councillor Wrigglesworth to Councillor Hibbert
“With Autumn approaching bringing with it shorter days more people will be travelling to and from work in the dark. Can the Cabinet Member tell me what has been done and if any more can be done to improve the lighting on the path to the Metro Station near Coalshaw Green Park?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he could confirm that additional lighting had been provided and a night inspection was due to take place which would identify if any further improvement in lighting levels could be achieved.
14 Councillor Iqbal to Councillor Hibbert
“Please could I have an update on the progress of the bridge near the Sixth-Form College?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he and the Leader had met with the engineers and looked at the various proposals. It had been hoped that work would start during the holidays, but this had not proved possible. The work was in hand and officers would meet with Ward Councillors and Medlock Vale Ward Councillors before work began.
15 Councillor Turner to Councillor Hibbert
“Sometime last year, my ward colleague, Councillor Murphy, brought to the attention of Highways officers issues relating to speeding traffic along Thornham Road, Royton (Crompton ward). After a traffic speed survey was carried out, which recorded speeds of over 79mph in a 30mph zone, a promise of police presence was made; however, there have not been any operations in this area to combat anti-social and dangerous behaviour. Ward Councillors funded out of their budgets speed camera signs which helped for a short while until people realised that it was an idle threat. So can the Council work with the police to arrange for action to be taken?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he would give a short verbal answer and a full written response would be provided to all Councillors. He had interrogated the results of the traffic survey recently undertaken along Thornham Road. The recorded injury accident database had also been interrogated and had revealedthat no injury accidents had occurred in the previous three years. The average speeds recorded, although higher than the 30 mph limit, were not considered excessive, however in view of the high speeds recorded, he felt it was necessary to apply to the Police for Thornham Road to be treated as a site of community concern.
16 Councillor McLaren to Councillor Hibbert
“Please could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the situation regarding disabled access at Mills Hill station?”
Councillor Hibbert responded that he had raised this several times with Transport for Greater Manchester. He was aware that this was something that was of great concern to many members of the public and it was something he would do his best to rectify as soon as possible.
17 Councillor Sedgwick to Councillor Hibbert
“Can the Cabinet Member confirm to the residents and myself when is West Street and Burton Street going to be resurfaced? They are a complete disgrace. We have two churches, St Thomas and St Edwards, in this area. Funeral processions have to go up and down these streets and it does not give a very good impression or provide a dignified ending for the deceased.
We need action now. We have waited long enough.“
Councillor Hibbert responded that the capital investment for highways improvements was currently being prioritised to improve the strategic route network and the secondary network roads. When these roads were to standard, funding would be allocated to the unclassified routes. These roads remained in the list of unclassified roads in the meantime and, given the specific issues caused by the condition of these roads, he would ask officers to see if there were any interim remedial works that could be carried out.
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED that the questions and the responses provided be noted.