(20 minutes for public questions and 20 minutes for Councillor questions)
Minutes:
The Mayor advised the meeting that the next 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 received from Jiten Patel via email:
“At a very recent council meeting I raised an issue of fly tipping behind the properties on Langham Road Coppice (OL8 1AX) and was assured that the council would help. I have approached my ward Councillor Kaiser Rehman who we only every see him when he knocks on doors at election time and have been ignored. Before the cabinet member reads out another scripted response I would ask her to view the pictures I have sent her via email and agree with me that this is not acceptable and is unfair to local residents.
To end… The reason I’m sending this email now is because I’ve seen stories in the Oldham chronicle over the last couple of weeks about other areas being blighted by the same thing and they’ve been sorted out. So why can’t we get ours cleaned up as well together with a long term solution?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded and agreed that this was a disgraceful situation, however this was not entirely the Council’s responsibility. Everyone had a role to play and report those who were flytipping so we can prosecute them. Some sites were privately owned. In respect of the incident, officers were in the process of gathering evidence and being investigated. Legal notices had been issued and the owner given seven days to clean it up. Residents would also be informed of the responsibilities.
2. Question received from Metrolink Meerkat via Twitter:
“Why are Oldham Councillors allowance + expenses £941k compared to Rochdale £712k (I expect a weak evasive answer as usual).
Councillor Shah, Cabinet Member for Policy and Governance responded that the Council in fact paid less when compared to some other Greater Manchester authorities. Although members voted on the allowances, the allowances were recommended by a panel of independent people who were members of the public. The allowance system gave consideration to out of pocket expenses and time taken to carry out council business. Transparency was important and it was right that residents get to see how much their local councillors were paid in allowances and expenses and allowances were published annually.
3. Question received from Ian Leech via Twitter:
“With the cuts will OMBC look to get rid of the outdated Parish Council’s and save over 200k for precept payers?”
Councillor Shah, Cabinet Member for Policy and Governance responded that the work which parish councillors did was valued and they had an important role to play. However, they were to be encouraged to think about what more they can do and take more responsibility such as bidding for services. All areas of council expenditure were constantly reviewed. A review would be welcomed if agreed and that is what the public wanted but that would need be supported across the Chamber by all political parties. Ultimately it would be for local residents. Parish Councils serve residents direct and they know if they remain fit for purpose.
4. Question received from Treguard via Twitter
“Do we know what’s happening with the land opposite the Millgate pub Failsworth and when construction will start/finish?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that the site in question was privately owned and an outline planning consent for residential development of the cleared site was approved by the Council in January 2016. A further detailed application for the construction of 32 houses had been submitted and was due for consideration over the coming weeks. In the event that the last application be approved, it was anticipated that the owner would be keen to see development commence at the earliest opportunity.
5. Question received from Dave@mercurycaz via Twitter
“Can we have traffic measures on Sholver Lane to reduce excessive speed and can we have enforced 3 ton weight limit please?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that the issue of speeding on the highway was primarily a police matter and they managed and operated a system of enforcement on the roads as part of their role in the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership. Where funding permitted it might be possible for the Council to consider physical highway measures in the form of traffic calming for the reduction of speed of traffic. In this scenario, sites with the worst injury accident records would be given highest priority in any future programme. The traffic speed data that the Council had suggested that Sholver Lane would not qualify as a Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership Community Concern site. Community concern sites were location which were of a concern to the local community. These sites might not have an accident history, but have a significant speeding problem to warrant enforcement before accidents happen. The ‘3T lorry’ signs at the top of Sholver Lane indicated the boundary of a parking ban that applies to goods vehicles over 3 tons in weight which covered the whole Sholver area. It was not a weight limit preventing vehicles weighing more than 3 tonnes travelling along Sholver Lane because all properties in the area need services provided by goods vehicles, not least of which is the refuse service.
6. Question received from Woody@steven0270979 via Twitter
“In the light of the ONS stating Oldham is at the bottom of the table, what is the council going to do about it?”
Councillor Stretton, Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the ONS Survey had caused a huge amount of public debate. A Leader’s Blog had been published and the response and support for it had been overwhelming. People felt angry about that story. It was vital to get the facts straight. There was deprivation in the borough and the Council was working to address that. The ONS only focussed on the centrally-located wards near Oldham Town Centre. Districts to the North, South, East and West such as Royton, Shaw, Failsworth, Hollinwood, Chadderton and Saddleworth had not been included. The parts of Oldham surveyed were those who are known to have socio-economic problems. Like many conurbations, these areas were suffering from the decline in manufacturing. The survey was based on data from 2011 and had failed to take into account the regeneration work and the metrolink extension. Programmes such as Get Oldham Working and Warm Homes were in place. A range of partners had committed to working together for the improvement of school results through the Oldham and Education Skills Commission. This was lazy journalism from researchers interrogating spreadsheets. The report did not recognise any of the work done since 2011. Since 2009 £192 million of funding had been cut, £90m out from welfare reform as well as other cuts to funding. Mr. Osborne had said that Oldham was part of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ but the necessary funding was yet to be realised. The message to Government was to help us and to stop knocking Oldham and help us turn it around.
7. Question received from Barry Locke via email
“Does the council support Oldham East & Saddleworth MP Debbie Abraham’s campaign to amend the 2011 Localism Act preventing convicted Sex Offenders, including Saddleworth Councillor Mike Buckley, from serving on a Parish Council?”
Councillor Shah, Cabinet Member for Policy and Governance responded that this particular case had received media coverage and public interest. As it stood under the Localism Act 2011 the Parish Council hands were tied, there was limited legal recourse to remove him at present and he could continue to hold office. Greg Clark, Secretary of State, was backing a change in the rules. On the exact question on whether the Council supported the campaign, she was not able to answer as the Council had not considered the issue and come to a vote. She shared her own view, which was shared by others, in that the law should be changed and she did not believe anyone convicted of a child sex offence should be allowed to hold office.
8. Question received from Syed Maruf Ali via email
“Education and skills levels in Werneth are low. At Foundation Stage, 45.2% of children reach a good level of development (compared to 51.3% in Oldham). For GCSEs, results are broadly in line with the Oldham average. Despite this, NEET rates are the 3rd highest in Oldham (6.1%). Can we please discuss about the NEET figure in Werneth Ward and what intervention and strategies are in place to reduce the NEET figure?”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills responded that improving educational attainment and progression from education into employment were fundamentally important features of the Council’s policy. The Council had supported improvement in primary schools in the ward as follows.
The Council had supported St. Patricks through coaching for teachers brokered by the council from SS Aidan & Oswald, leading to increased progress in all subjects and a 15% increase in the proportion of children reaching the government expected standard. As an OFSTED Good, St. Thomas had required just quality assurance of the school’s own improvement plan through a council funded School Improvement Partner and there had been an increase here as well. Werneth and Freehold were academies whose sponsors were responsible for managing standards, both have had recent small declines in attainment.
The Council had reviewed its contract with Positive Steps to ensure NEETs were more targeted, and the latest NEET rate for Werneth is 4.1% not 6.1%. This was now below average (4.1% compared to 4.5% borough average). In the latest comparative data for statistical neighbours (4.5%) and the England average (4.2%). Positive Steps state the rate within Werneth was very positive considering the levels of deprivation within the area, and therefore there were no additional specific interventions planned, other than what was already happening across the NEET agenda overall, which obviously included activity within the Werneth area.
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:
1. Councillor Roberts to Councillor Jabbar:
“Tandle View Court is an excellent home in Royton North for older people and those needing extra care – can the relevant Cabinet Member comment on the potential implications for residents of the Government’s proposals (now under review) to restrict Housing Benefit? A survey by Inside Housing found that 95% of supported housing providers through that they would be forced to close supported housing schemes for vulnerable and older people if a Housing Benefit cap announced in the chancellor’s spending review is implemented. This is because the extra care people need is funded by charging higher rents. Can the relevant Cabinet Member also assure me that the Council will be making the strongest possible case for continued Housing Benefit payments during the current review of this proposed change?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources responded that the Council’s extra care housing schemes were all managed within the Council’s Housing Revenue Account. There were a number of potential issues regarding how Council housing was funded based on the Government’s radical proposals. These issues had been reported previously to the Council and officers continued to keep a close eye on the Government’s welfare reform and housing bill proposals both to highlight any key risks and identify how they might be managed. Concern was expressed that this Government seemed focussed on dismantling the ability of the Council and its social housing partners to deliver much needed affordable and specialist supported housing in the borough. Councillor Jabbar was proud of the Extra Care Housing service at Tandle View Court in Royton and agreed with Councillor Roberts that this provided excellent and much-needed supported accommodation. He offered assurances that Councillor Hibbert and the Chief Executive had written to the Government expressing concerns in the strongest possible terms to these potential changes as early as November 2015. He was please to inform members that intensive lobbying with partners had made the Government reconsider implementation of their proposals until at least April 2017. The impact of the effects on the introduction of any changes to how specialist supported accommodation like Extra Care was funding would be looked into.
2. Councillor Chadderton to Councillor Akhtar:
“Following the announcement in February 2015 that Royton and Crompton School would be a beneficiary of funding for a new build, through the Priority School Building Programme, can the cabinet member provide us with an update as to the current position surrounding this.”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, responded that in July 2014 an application was made for funding to rebuild Royton and Crompton School under central governments Priority Schools Building Programme Phase 2. Since the initial application the Council had been made aware of our ‘partial success’ but had yet to be informed of the actual content by the Education Funding Agency. A further meeting had been proposed by the EFA for April 2016 to commence the project scoping. Whilst Oldham Council and the school had aspirations for a total new build, it was noted that the EFA had only specifically referred to addressing condition issues in two of the school blocks neither a partial or total rebuild. The Capital and Works Manager was keeping in regular verbal contact with his opposite number at the EFA and had received verbal reassurances that the feasibility and design activity would commence in April 2016. Whilst the Council would like to see this project happen immediately, the Council would need to acknowledge and work within the boundaries of the centrally funded programme of works and do all that could be done to work with the EFA to get the maximum benefit for the current and future students at Royton and Crompton.
3. Councillor McLaren to Councillor Hibbert / Councillor Brownridge:
“The Rochdale Canal runs through Chadderton Central Ward, in the 1980’s a regeneration scheme replaced the former Drummer Hill swing bridge with a fixed wooden bridge. This bridge forms part of a thoroughfare between the Firwood Park estate and Joshua Lane, and it allows residents to access vital transport links. The bridge is now in a poor state of repair and several temporary repairs have been carried out, could the relevant Cabinet Member please advise us what steps are being taken to ensure that this important community asset is maintained to a level that will allow continued use?”
Coucnillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, responded that the footbridge had been built as part of the canal regeneration project. British Waterways and the Council worked together to undertake the works but no agreement had been made as to the responsibility for future maintenance. Whilst this was not a Council asset, emergency repairs had been undertaken on safety grounds and quotations for long term repairs were being obtained. Discussions were ongoing with the Canal and River Trust for an agreement to be reached on bridge ownership and future maintenance.
4. Councillor Williamson to Councillor Hibbert:
“Like every Councillor, I often report issues relating to Highways, such as potholes, when these are brought to my attention by constituents or when I spot them in the course of my ward work. As a Councillor I provide a professional and prompt service to my constituents, including regular updates on progress with an issue. So why is it that I cannot receive a prompt service from this department to help me carry out my duties?
Over the last six months, a number of incidents where I have reported issues, asked for site visits, chased up early contact, and got nowhere. These issues appear to have ‘fallen on deaf ears’ or ‘been forgotten’. Not just for a day or two, but for a number of weeks. This should not be a standard of service that any Councillor should be required to accept.
At present when I report an issue I receive an automated email to acknowledge receipt, and then another ‘personally addressed’ to say that it has been passed to ‘our Highways Section’. Then nothing!
I have to keep chasing officers for an answer and it doesn’t help that the email have no reference number on them. This is slapdash. As there is no feedback, I’ve often had to go round to the areas several times to check for myself if a repair has been done.
I know that I am not the only one that has been experiencing problems with current practice. Can I therefore ask the Cabinet Member responsible to investigate the way members enquiries are dealt with through the highways@oldham.gov.uk and to make the necessary changes so members enquiries are in future dealt with professionally and promptly, that they get regular progress reports?
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport rejected the negative remarks. The Highways Department received around 8,000 requests for service each year and it had been recognised that there was a clear need to automate the allocation and investigation process with an investment in a new highways asset management system. The project to deliver a new system was underway and this would improve the responsiveness of the service with a clear risk based approach to delivering an efficient service. It was understood that officers had apologised and met with Councillor Williamson on site to respond to the issues raised and going forward improvements would be key in the improving clear and appropriate communications with all Council stakeholders. Councillor Hibbert stated that he received far more compliments than complaints regarding staff.
5. Councillor Fielding to Councillor Hibbert
“The frequency of trams from Failsworth has increased to every 6 minutes in both directions at most times of the day. Manchester bound, alternate trams currently terminate at Exchange Square in the city centre. Can the cabinet member responsible please update on how soon these trams will be able to continue across the city so that Failsworth residents can access South Manchester destinations directly?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport, responded that from September this year when the St. Peter’s stop fully reopens, a 12 minute service will resume to South Manchester (Rochdale to East Didsbury). The additional service from Shaw and Crompton to Exchange Square would remain as it is until the opening of Second City Crossing, which was forecast for completion in Summer 2017. The routing of Oldham trams following completion of Second City Crossing had not yet been confirmed. Councillor Hibbert gave assurances that concerns had been pressed with Transport for Greater Manchester.
6. Councillor Ball to Councillor Harrison
“In St. James’ we have come across many housing associations tenants who are not being allowed the correct bathroom facilities for their needs. Despite it being advised that they need a shower cubicle. This is because shower cubicles are not being put in above the ground floor, because future tenants may wish to turn it back into a bath. Many of these tenants are elderly or disabled, and in order for them to remain in their home, amongst support from family and friends they need a safe way to bathe. It is council policy that people remain in their homes within their communities as long as possible, and our partners have agreed to this. Why is it not happening?”
Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding responded that the Council worked closely with housing provider partners to make best use of social housing stock and look for the best housing solutions for residents. This may include making adaptations or changes to an existing home or discussing with residents re-housing options which might work better in the long-term.
Housing provider partners in Oldham Housing Investment Partnership had agreed an adaptations policy which covered what adaptations would normally be agreed, including issues such as shower cubicles and level access showers. This policy had been developed in partnership with the Council, Oldham Care and Support and the Community Occupational Therapy Team. One of the purposes of the policy was to ensure the maximisation of the Disabled Facilities Grant and, as such, all the partners supported an approach to rehousing as an option in the first instance. A housing provider would normally only consider installing a shower cubicle or level access shower in the case where a bathroom is on the ground floor or there is lift access to the upper floor. If a resident requires a shower cubicle or level access shower and they have to walk upstairs, a better longer-term solution was re-housing. This policy also clarified that adaptations would not normally be removed when a tenant left the property. Any properties with major adaptations which became available were offered to people who had a medical need for those adaptations. Councillor Ball was requested to send through details of specific cases so that could be investigated.
7. Councillor Harkness to Councillor Hibbert
“As part of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, a number of green field sites in Dobcross, Delph, Diggle and Denshaw that are within my ward in Saddleworth are up for consideration to build houses and some are inappropriate. Will the Cabinet Member join me in opposing housing development on green field sites and instead work with me in looking first as the suitability of brown field sites, such as Baileys Mill and Birks Quarry?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that Oldham’s Monitoring Report for 2014/15 showed that we had sufficient land to meet current new housing need, with a 7 year supply of deliverable housing land. However, if through the work ongoing the Combined Authority, identified a need to delivery greater housing growth, additional development opportunities would need to be identified. Sites had been put forward by interested parties as part of the work to develop the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and these were now being assessed. At this stage these sites had no status or endorsement as sites for future development by either Greater Manchester or ourselves. Councillor Hibbert reemphasised that these sites were just “twinkles” in developers’ eyes and would go no further. Obviously the suitability of brownfield sites would form part of this work with the next formal consultation being in the Autumn when the draft GMSF would be published for comment.
8. Councillor Marie Bashforth to Councillor Hibbert
“I have noticed what seems to be an increase in the failure of individual street lighting columns in my ward. Can the relevant Cabinet Member provide us with a contact where we can report failures, and be confident that the message will get through and a repair will follow in a reasonable time?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that to report a street lighting outage the number to contact was 03003038881 or alternatively by email to ‘O&RPFI@sustainable.eon-uk.com, however, if the fault was an immediate risk to health and safety Eon could be contacted on 0800 015 0452. Councillor Hibbert requested that this contract information be provided to all councillors.
9. Councillor Qumer to Councillor Hibbert
“When is the road surface on Waterloo Street being repaired?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that a recent site inspection by the highways officers had shown a number of defects which required attention. Councillor Hibbert confirmed that the officers were working to ensure the repairs needed were undertaken at the earliest opportunity.
10. Councillor Price to Councillor Brownridge
“A major issue in parts of Waterhead is litter and fly tipping. A very successful initiative was a neighbourhood caretaker that myself and ward colleagues funded. Would the cabinet member consider a more localised approach in areas where litter and fly tipping are an issue; such as a neighbourhood caretaker?
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the Council had a targeted approach and the investment made last year reflected this with the dandy men focused on key routes and a dedicated team working closely with enforcement officers not only to clean the areas but as importantly hold those responsible to account. It was to be stressed that evidence showed that as long as the Council picked it up people would put it back down. Changing behaviours was the way to tackle those who blight an area. There was an opportunity for individual wards to take up a targeted programme and employment of a caretaker was one way to get actively involved.
11. Councillor Sheldon to Councillor Hibbert
“Please can I ask a question to Councillor Dave Hibbert re highways. I have noticed over the past weeks several footpaths being resurfaced, this includes Chew Valley Road Greenfield, Oldham Road Grasscroft and Huddersfield Road from the former Star Inn at Scouthead all the way to Lees. I have been disappointed that these footpaths have been given a higher priority for repair to the footpath on High Street Uppermill. I requested the resurfacing before the carriageway was resurfaced in September 2015. High Street Uppermill is a very popular tourist destination by day and has a very lively night scene, without exaggeration there are thousands of footsteps through Uppermill each week. The state of the footpaths are a disgrace and with the slightest amount of rainfall the footpath turns into a series of large puddles. Please can I have an assurance from Councillor Hibbert that the footpaths on High Street Uppermill will be repaired/resurfaced as a matter of urgency?”
“Please can I also ask Councillor Hibbert for an update on the progress of work to reopen the Riverside path from Spring Street to Bridge Street, Uppermill?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport responded that the remainder of the High Street, Uppermill footways would continue to be inspected and monitored on a monthly basis for deterioration and drainage.
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Transport also responded that the footpath had been closed for safety reasons as the whole of the embankment in this location was eroding and moving towards the river. Unfortunately, the land had not registered owner to carry out works to stabilise the embankment. Currently, any money spent on clearing the footpath could cause the embankment to collapse further. The footpath closure was extended until December this year and between now and then officers would be working to bring the current situation to a conclusion.
At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that that time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED that the questions and the responses provided be noted.