(20 minutes for public questions and 20 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 questions had been submitted:
1. Question from Joe Fitzpatrick via email:
“I have learnt that a senior officer involved with Council finances has declared that the funding of the capital programme is risky. Normally reliable sources inform me that the inducements being offered to Mono pumps are in the region of £4 million and the money to be paid to attract a national company to be the anchor store in your plans to develop Prince’s Gate will also be financed out of the capital programme.
How can you justify adding this payment to a capital programme, already judged to be risky, and how can you ignore the European Union Regulations designed to prohibit the payment of such inducements. “
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and City Region gave the following response:
“May I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his question. I disagree entirely with the principle that the capital programme is risky. The Capital programme funding is not risky and the Council has a healthy Capital Programme. A recent summary review identified £10m. The Council’s debt is the third lowest in Greater Manchester. The Council has a significant number of PFI liabilities to central government. The Council has not given Monopumps any money but received funding through a Regional Growth Fund. I am pleased that Marks and Spencer is coming to Oldham and delighted that a disused area is becoming a Gateway we can be proud of. Contracts have been exchanged and the development will happen. The town is coming out fighting and providing a positive future. The Council will come forward with the development of the site.”
2. Question received from Jit Patel via email:
“Behind Langham road in oldham coppice is being plagued with fly tipping. I have reported this many times and to be fair it has been cleaned up,however now I am told that the council no longer clear this fly tipped rubbish as the area is un-adopted. Fly Tipped rubbish started when the council introduced waste collection charges am I supposed to live in a dumping ground as I am no longer in a position to clear it my self.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives gave the following response:
“We agree that the flytipping is completely unacceptable. We are trying to find out who owns the land so we can take legal actions against them. This is not Council owned land and we cannot continue to clear it. The owners must take responsibility. Enforcement Officers will work with the landowners
Officers from Neighbourhood Enforcement will work with the landowners to establish who has flytipped and they will be prosecuted, ultimately it is the landower’s responsiblity.”
3. Question received from Amanda Lane via email:
“I have been to a meeting recently with Gary McBrien Head of Additional and Complex Needs Services. As you are aware there are big budget cuts to be made across the council and to children's services. The meeting tonight focussed on Short Breaks for Disabled Children. 350k has to be saved from this service which currently has allocated 1.2 million, so quite a big cut around 25%. My son accesses this service and has overnight respite care once a fortnight. Tonights meeting was about getting parent's views on this and giving us an opportunity to have our say.
I would like to ask the question how much money was spent on Oldham's entry into Bloom and Grow, how much extra money has it cost in terms of staffing ie a biodiversity officer, manpower tending the flower boxes, staff costs for tending all the areas ahead of judging, the cost of the flowers, plants and seeds etc. Huge cuts are taking place I think Oldham Council needs to be far more accountable as to where money is spent and also to prioritise in this difficult financial climate.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives gave the following response:
“There is a misconception that Bloom & Grow is all about flowers when in reality the benefits stretch to support local businesses, improve education by enabling children to attain their Diplomas, clean streets free from litter and graffiti as well as looking to improve the health of local communities. The £200000 that is currently allocated to the Bloom & Grow initiative is funded through the Public Health transformation fund and the investment is to support all parts of our communities in improving general health and wellbeing. We feel that the investment made in the town centre and the districts is an essential part of the make Oldham a place where people choose to live and provide savings for us as the residents looking after their areas and the Council does not have to pick up flytipping and other waste.”
4. Question received from Chris Gloster via email:
“My understanding is that the consultation period for the proposed changes to Shaw Market Ground are now complete.
Why did the so called consultation give no option for retaining the market on the existing market ground?
Many users have expressed annoyance at this.
Some included the missing option upon the consultation document prior to submitting it.
I am sure many others would have ticked the current location box if it had existed on the document, which would have given a large majority in favour of keeping it where it is.
Why is the finance not available to redevelop the existing market ground, it feels like local people like me are being bribed to agree to it being moved?
Would it not be better to redevelop the existing site, therefore revamping the Market and tackling to substantial anti-social behaviour that currently exists in that area with the current market set up?”
Councillor Stretton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Culture and Tourism gave the following response:
“I have answered a similar question at a previous Council meeting but will answer it again.
The consultation was about whether the Council should invest up to £120,000 on improving Shaw Market. There is a great risk that Shaw market will not survive unless it gets more customers and a greater variety of stalls. Both of these factors are dependent upon each other and our Markets Manager has been consistently trying to attract new stall holders without success because of the dwindling numbers of people using the market. So the principle we were testing out via the consultation was whether moving the market closer to the heaviest footfall in Shaw i.e. closer to Asda and Aldi, would attract new customers.
The Council is already investing £100,000 in Business Improvement Grants in Shaw so it was also important for us to consider what impact any changes to the location of the market and shifting of footfall might have on other Shaw businesses.
I was clear at the outset that leaving the market on the same site and investing £120,000 on improving the stalls would not make the market more visible or easier to get to for supermarket customers who might be encouraged to also become Shaw market shoppers. If the Council is to invest, we need to be sure that we will eventually get a return on our investment. Simply modernising the stalls is unlikely to generate the extra footfall or encourage new traders.
Nevertheless, I can assure Mr. Gloster that the consultation process did allow people to express their views about staying on the same site. Many of the consultation results were achieved by face to face interviews and the Council staff noted all additional views that were expressed. Many people also added their own written comments about the location and staying on the same site. Many existing market customers did tell us that they wanted the market to stay on the current site and we are considering all of the comments very carefully before reaching such an important decision.
However, we must all be realistic. Shopping habits have changed. How many people have bought their Christmas presents on line this year and how many bought them from a local market?
5. Question received from Chaz Sharp via Twitter:
“Why does Oldham Council have the highest wheelie bin per capita in the whole of western civilisation?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives gave the following response:
“The Council takes recycling very seriously and have to ensure there are enough bins to do that properly which saves us money on landfill tax. The number of bins and containers issued to residents is similar throughout Greater Manchester. We do appreciate that some properties have space issues If space is an issue then we do provide alternative sizes and types of containers such as boxes or bags.”
6. Question received from Metromeerk via Twitter:
“Will Oldham please look into MCR Metrolink. Expensive, unreliable, overcrowded and failed completely on Sat AM?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport gave the following response:
“Metrolink prices are comparable with train travel. The reliability on the Oldham Rochdale line was rated at 98% during September and October which is above the benchmark. There were some issues with signalling equipment which impacted on services in November which have now been corrected.
We are aware that the trams are often overcrowded at peak times shows how popular and there are plans to deal with this. TfGM recently introduced another double unit into the peak service and is looking to add a further double early in 2015. The current 12 minute service will be replaced by a 6 minute service in early 2016 when the City crossing is completed.
The whole of the Metrolink service was disrupted last Saturday because of icy conditions which we agree need to be addressed if possible because this affects Oldham because we are the highest borough in Greater Manchester.
The Council receives regular reports about the efficiency of Metrolink at formal meetings with Transport for Greater Manchester and closely scrutinises the data about the performance of the Oldham Rochdale line. Councillors will question the reliability during icy conditions at the Metrolink meeting this week.”
7. Question received from Doctor of Letters via Twitter:
“How are people parked on double yellow lines expected ever to be held to account ( I.e. A FPN) because in an evening there is nobody to issue tickets so they get away with it as the car parked on Ashton road has on at least eight evenings in the last 15 they have got away with it and will continue to do so. Defacto legalised.”
Councillor Stretton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Culture and Tourism gave the following response:
“The council does regulate through enforcement in the evenings Borough wide. Along Ashton Road there are a number of different restrictions, some of which stop at 6.30pm. We note the concerns raised in this particular area, and will ask officers to ensure that this is provided particular attention over the next few weeks.”
8. Question received from Andrew Colin Hindley via email:
“I have just heard the news that there is a plan to move the Oldham Coliseum Theatre to a new site on Union street
Are there going to be 2 theatre venues in Oldham?, if not I am kinda wondering why Oldham council spent £1.7 million pounds on revamping the old theatre less than 2 years ago if there where plans in the pipeline for it to close and move to a new site.”
Councillor Stretton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Culture and Tourism gave the following response:
“The Council has been working with Oldham Coliseum Theatre for a number of years to develop a new Coliseum Theatre and Heritage Centre on Union Street. The project is viewed as having a crucial role in the cultural regeneration of Oldham town centre with the main funders being OMBC, The Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund. It will form a new and exciting extension to the Cultural Quarter and will have a regional profile.
Oldham Coliseum will relocate into the new building once it has been completed. Work is ongoing to consider the future use of the existing Coliseum building.
Urgent repairs to the mechanical and electrical elements of the current Coliseum building were carried out by the Council to ensure that there was not a forced closure of the theatre as the building is approaching the end of its economic life and key elements were at the point of failure. By doing so the Council has secured the medium term future of the theatre.”
9. Question received from Mr. Brooks via email:
“Oldham Council promotes a spectrum of co-operative working with an open and honest co-operative approach. In fact the Community Call-in pilot offers the opportunity to strengthen local democracy and build closer engagement between communities and decisions made at a district level. It also enhances local accountability and influence people have over local decisions.
With the Co-Operative charter in mind and particularly the values contained within it why have Oldham Council refused to consult and engage with the people of Saddleworth regarding the siting of the new Saddleworth School? The last public meeting on this emotive issue was in October 2013.”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Safeguarding gave the following response:
“Oldham Council strongly recognises the need to be as transparent as possible regarding Saddleworth School and have endeavoured to release information wherever possible. Indeed, in April 2014, the Council released a set of Frequently Asked Questions which are still available and answer this very point.
After receiving confirmation of EFA funding, the Council considered a total of 15 sites which were all appraised based on timescales, deliverability, cost, legal, planning, highways and engineering risk. The details of these 15 sites were released in the public domain and were published in the local press. As Mr. Brooks states a public consultation was held 13 months ago. There is not that large an update as we are still awaiting confirmation of the site of the school. Moving forward, it is understood by the Council and the EFA and the potential contractor of the school that that there will be a number of public consultation events that will take place in early 2015 and the Council would welcome feedback at the appropriate time.”
The following questions were submitted by Councillors on Ward or District Matters:
1. Councillor Malik to Councillor Stretton:
“Oldham Market is very important to Oldham, because it is situated in Coldhurst Ward it is of particular interest to Coldhurst Ward Councillors and residents. Can the cabinet member responsible for the Market update us on the occupancy levels in Tommyfield indoor market hall?”
Councillor Stretton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Culture and Tourism gave the following response:
“Despite the general economic climate the indoor market currently has a high level of trader occupancy that would compare well with other indoor markets in the UK.
The turnover of traders within the indoor Market Hall is also low, something many other markets struggle to achieve.
The indoor market has an occupancy level of 92.2%.”
2. Councillor Blyth to Councillor Harrison:
“Why has the podiatry service that was delivered at Crompton Health Centre, been moved to Royton Health centre without prior consultation with the service users?
Moving this service has caused distress to users and also extra cost to travel to Royton.
It seems that everything is been moved to Royton at the expense of the residents of Shaw again.
Can the Cabinet member make representations to the Health and Wellbeing Board to have this service returned to Crompton Health Centre so that service users canreceive the service they used to have in the town they live in?”
Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health gave the following response:
“I have received the following information from Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, the main provider of community based healthcare in Oldham.
Pennine Care Oldham Podiatry Service has been spread historically across 11 centres within Oldham Clinical Commissioning Group footprint, many of which were in old buildings with single chairs. The challenges for the service in delivering from this number of venues have been significant and include reduced access for patients, as the clinics cannot be staffed all week and clinics being cancelled at times of sickness and annual leave.
The service reviewed current clinic utilisation with a view to working from venues where more than one chair is available, which evidence demonstrates has improved clinical outcomes for patients. At the same time, this enables the service to meet the challenges and pressures of the current financial situation as it not just the Council finding financial pressures for the wider NHS and Pennine Care. The venues chosen to deliver podiatry are LIFT buildings as they are modern, fit for purpose, fully comply with infection control, and support the effective use of resources. Moving provides a healthier, safe place for patients.”
3. Councillor Ames to Councillor Hibbert:
“Fuel Poverty is a big problem in Oldham and has a real impact on the residents of Hollinwood. Could the relevant Cabinet Member update members on the progress of the Warm Homes Oldham scheme and the impact this has made helping people out of fuel poverty?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport gave the following response:
“The Warm Homes Oldham scheme helped over 1000 people out of fuel poverty in the first year. In total 439 households accounting for 1079 people were assisted out of fuel poverty (i.e. no longer spending more than 10% of their income on heating bills).
During the first year the project brought in over £1.3 million of external funding to help install 364 boilers, 19 lofts/cavities and 80 homes benefitted from solid wall insulation. Energy efficiency advice is given at every home visit and the average savings per household for year one have been over £250. Benefits checks are done with residents and we also help people get off prepayment meters and get fuel debt wiped.
Due to its success the partners who put in the original funding for the project (Oldham Council, Oldham Clinical Commissioning Group and Oldham Housing Investment Partnership) have all agreed to continue the project for at least another year (2014/15).
Since April this year a further 475 people have been brought out of fuel poverty, towards our target of 1200, already attracting over £500,000worth of external investment.
So as you can see there are a variety of options of help available to residents of Oldham who are in fuel poverty, if you know of any residents in Hollinwood or any other Oldham area who may need assistance please refer them to the scheme and we can see how we can help. Call 0800 019 1084 or go to www.warmhomesoldham.org.uk”
4. Councillor McCann to Councillor Chadderton:
“I am very disappointed we are still awaiting a decision on the site of the new Saddleworth School due to the full investigation being conducted on four possible sites.
Could I ask the Cabinet Member to give me an estimate of the cost, the extra inflationary cost, arising from the delay and confirmation that this money will reduce the amount available for the new school build?”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Safeguarding gave the following response:
“I share the frustration and disappointment that things have been pushed back. As raised in the previous question it has been 14 months since the consultation and it was anticipated that we would be building the school in anticipation of it opening in 12 months time., clearly that won’t be taking place. With regards to finance and additional costs, the Council has committed over £1m to work with highways and other issues and other extras specific to the work. This feasibility work is being funded by the EFA and, whilst the Council have assisted this process by sharing relevant documents and plans, the Authority isn’t privy to the costs associated with this process and therefore, would be unable to confirm the cost and extra inflationary cost arising from the delay.”
5. Councillor Dean to Councillor McMahon:
“My constituents living in Waterhead Village are very concerned at the Post
Office proposals to move the Waterhead
branch to Lees
This Post Office provides services for many elderly residents and
has 5 warden schemes within 100 yards of this Post Office.
Over 300 residents have sent written objection to this move.
I would ask if the Cabinet member would support my constituents in
opposing the Post Office proposals.”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and City Region responded that he had not been sighted on the exact details but recognised the importance of the local post office and the services they provide and support can be offered when called upon.
6. Councillor Alcock to Councillor Brownridge:
“Can the relevant cabinet member please tell us, whether the community cafe in Dunwood Park was paid for with funding from the lottery?
I'm hearing that there are plans to let the community cafe on a long term lease. If this goes ahead will this mean that the lottery will be looking for the money they contributed to be returned to them?
If so how much will this be and which budget will this money be coming from?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives gave the following response:
“The Community building was funded through the Lottery funding. Over recent weeks we have been working with colleagues to explore/develop a sustainable future for the building and consideration is being given to develop a café in the community building to serve the local community.
We have identified from the lottery Funding Agreement that we would require consent/approval from HLF as part of due diligence in exploring options once we are in a position to move forward with our proposals.
At this stage we are not in a position to confirm whether or not it will mean the return of any of the grant funding supplied by the lottery. However the lottery will be able to make comment on our proposals and at that stage the council will be able to make a decision to accept or reject the terms that are determined by the lottery before entering into any final agreement.”
7. Councillor Shuttleworth to Councillor Hibbert:
“The former Rose Mill site in Chadderton south has remained vacant for some time and the access road for the former mill, Rose St, has now become an area where residents/others regard this as an easy area in which to dump waste.
As this is a prime location for the Metro link as well as other local services, and also borders on the Coalshaw Green Park, may I ask the Cabinet Member to provide an update as to the intended long term use of this piece of land.”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport gave the following response:
“The mill has been demolished for some time and a blight on the area. I have been deeply involved to get something to happen on this site. I am aware that a company are interested in the development of the site which was not surprising as it is so close to Metrolink. Phase 1 would be the development of the site. One of the accesses would be Rose Street would be the access to the site but cannot confirm that as I have not seen the plans. I will make sure fellow councillors are aware of any proposals as details have not been made yet.”
8. Councillor Williamson to Councillor Brownridge:
“The former gardeners store building at High Crompton Park has been up for sale or long lease for months now. I understand there has been at least three expressions of interest.
I know that these things take time, but I am concerned that if the Council is seen to be dragging its feet, those looking at turning it into a business, that will benefit the community in High Crompton will lose out yet again, like when former Crompton Councillor, Ann Wingate tried to get a café opened up there.
Therefore, can the relevant cabinet member please give me an update?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, gave the following response:
“Following a period of little or no interest in the former Direct Services Organisation building at High Crompton Park, Officers considered the possibility of the Council’s Parks Service re-using the premises in conjunction with the local bowling club. Whilst this was being evaluated a number of parties came forward expressing an interest in operating a café business as well as one for a Children’s Party Centre.
In view of the renewed interest, the proposal to re-use the building for the Council’s own purposes has been shelved. Instructions have since been passed to the Council’s marketing agent, Roger Hannah & Co, to contact all interested parties to secure written offers & obtain further details of each proposal. Roger Hannah will make a recommendation to the Council in due course.
Ward Councillors will be kept informed of progress.”
9. Councillor Murphy to Councillor Brownridge:
“After a recent incident where criminal damage was carried out on a 40 year old oak tree in Shawside Park in Crompton, Council tree officers had to make the area safe and eventually cut down the tree.
Can the relevant cabinet member please let me know what action is being taken to find out who carried out this damage and whether all costs associated with this case will be recouped from the culprit?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, gave the following response:
“With cases of criminal damage it is normal procedure for the Council Officer attending the site to knock on properties adjacent to the incident and ask for any information relating to the incident. Sometimes this can glean enough information to pursue the matter, but unfortunately in most cases including this one nobody was forthcoming with any information.
Officers will now do a letter drop in the area in an attempt to solicit the necessary information to at least recover the council’s costs, and secure replacement trees. The matter has also been reported to the police. If anyone has any information please let us know as soon as possible.”
10. Councillor Sedgwick to Councillor Stretton:
“I am pleased that this Council is committed to investing £100,000 in Lees high street.
I have previously asked if some of this money could be used to improve security for local businesses as well as improving the shop fronts.
Please can I ask the Cabinet Member if this administration is willing to work with ward members and local businesses to spend some of this money to address security concerns in Lees?”
Councillor Stretton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Culture and Tourism gave the following response:
“I note that this mentions ward members but I have consulted with one ward member who is not in agreement with this proposal.
The Business Improvements Grant scheme is specifically focused on improving the vibrancy of Shaw and Lees, by providing a grant to independent local businesses towards works that will improve their business. The grant will pay 50% of the costs of eligible works up to a maximum grant payment of £3000. The business or property owner pays the remaining costs. The Shaw and Lees schemes were introduced following the success and popularity of the £1m grant scheme for the Independent Quarter in Oldham town centre and we are also currently extending the Business Improvements Grant scheme to include the Failsworth A62 Corridor.
The grants can be used to improve the exterior of premises and can also be used for the interior where it will help the business to grow and/or create new jobs. Priority is given to applications that maximise visual improvement, have a sustainable business plan and where the improvement is likely to be long lasting and/or where there will be business growth.
I am aware that some businesses in Lees have requested that the grant funding be used to pay for CCTV on the High Street itself, but this is not what the grant scheme was intended to deliver. All businesses in Lees have been offered a security and safety inspection from our community safety officer so that they can receive professional and free advice about how best to make their premises secure.”
RESOLVED that the questions raised and the responses given be noted.