Agenda item

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 Ian Manners via email

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Transport say what improvements are being made for the provision of transport between the Saddleworth villages?”

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that, following deregulation of the bus market in 1985, the majority of bus services within Greater Manchester (around 80%) had been delivered by commercial operators and, as a result Oldham Council and TfGM were very limited in terms of what they could do.  TfGM had a responsibility for funding services where there was a social need, which the market did not consider commercially viable.  At the current time, TfGM were facing budget cuts whilst trying to maintain and improve existing subsidised services. Their subsidised network included the popular Saddleworth and Mossley Local Link. 

 

The Council was committed to working with TfGM and other operators to get the best service for Saddleworth and the rest of the borough.  We were the only authority in Greater Manchester to work with TfGM and put forward a bid to the Government’s Total Transport Pilot Fund.  We secured a grant through this Fund which will allow us to explore how existing bus and minibus services can be brought together to deliver more joined-up and efficient services in the Saddleworth area.  This study will take place over the next couple of years, led by TfGM and, if successful, the new approach could be rolled out to benefit Saddleworth and other areas of Greater Manchester. 

 

In the longer term, the proposal included in the Greater Manchester Devolution Agreement for the Mayor to have responsibility for franchised bus services, will, if adopted, provide an opportunity to overcome the barriers we face with the current deregulated system and allow us to provide a fully integrated transport system.

 

2.         Question from Simon@S_C_W via Twitter

 

“@OldhamCouncil when is something going to be done about the dangerous zebra crossing in Royton? (We then asked what crossing it was) Hi, thanks for getting back to me. The one outside Royton town hall, Rochdale Road near the pound bakery. Market day in particular is awful with pedestrians walking out in front of traffic.”

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that some time ago the Council made a commitment to review all the Zebra crossings in the borough and carry out any improvements deemed necessary. The majority of the zebras had now had their road markings refreshed and shortly new belisha beacons will be installed to make the sites more visible.

 

The zebra crossing outside the Town Hall had been prioritised and the belisha beacons and posts had already been replaced. The road had been resurfaced and the road markings will be installed very shortly (they were delayed to avoid the new road surfacing material bleeding through the white markings). This will be a big improvement on the previous position and certainly make the crossing more visible to both pedestrians and motorists.

 

In the longer term we will look at traffic movement generally as part of the regeneration of Royton District Centre and this will include whether the zebra could be upgraded a different facility for example a Pelican Crossing (now called a PUFFIN crossing).

 

The description of the crossing as dangerous was rejected as, when used properly, it was safe for everyone.

 

3.         Question from Sarah Riley via email

 

“In Oldham we have 2 streets which are full of takeaways (Union Street and Yorkshire Street). As a mother of 2 children who attend Oldham Six Form College I am worried about the potential impact this is having on my children and other children as they are encouraged to have takeaways at lunchtime. In Oldham we have got major investment going on to improve the town centre and increase foot fall. When people visit Oldham they have the impression we are a "Takeaway Town". This is affecting people’s health when they are always eating junk food on a daily basis. Why can't the council establish a licensing process which governs the takeaways like how you have done it with the selective landlord licensing scheme.”

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded, thanking the member of the public for this question. As part of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy, the Council was working closely with schools, colleges, residents and businesses to promote healthy eating in the borough.

 

In terms of enforcement of takeaways, as part of the Local Plan, the Council had a Supplementary Planning Document called ‘Vibrant Centres’, which provided guidance to be read alongside other relevant planning policies.  It aimed to provide clear and consistent guidance for promoting and maintaining the vitality and viability of Oldham Town Centre and the borough’s other allocated ‘Centres’.  This included guidance for food and drink uses (including hot food takeaways) and sought to manage the concentration and clustering of such uses. However, whilst this guidance was a positive start to controlling such uses, it could only be used when assessing future planning applications for new hot food takeaway uses and could not be applied retrospectively to existing uses which were already established.

 

In terms of Environmental Health, officers regularly visited food establishments to ensure that food was stored, prepared and sold appropriately.

 

The Council was working to support a range of new businesses in the Town Centre and actively encourage a choice of alternative places to eat.

 

4.         Question from Gary Millward via email

 

“Kava Coffee - can anyone explain the decision why this building has escaped the jaws of the demolition team. The demolition of its neighbouring slums has really highlighted the deterioration of the building it appears to have no aesthetic beauty especially from the rear. The upper storeys are very dilapidated. The cost to bring it into the 21st century would be financially unviable and also compromise a possible future development. Just because it's old doesn't make it worthy of preservation.”

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise Region responded with thanks for this question. Simply because the building was old did not mean it should be demolished. Those buildings that had been demolished were those that the Council had bought with consent and had led to ongoing development.

 

The Council do not own this building and are working with its owner to bring about improvements to its external appearance. The building could be restored to looking good and making a positive contribution to the area.

 

5.         Question from Jonny_Chaos via Twitter

 

“Why is there constant work being done on the bungalows on Mabel Road playing field?  Literally every single week day.” 

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that people would be happy to know that Oldham looks after its vulnerable residents in their old age. As part of a long-term partnership with the Council, Housing & Care 21 managed and maintained over 1400 sheltered homes across the borough, including 819 bungalows.

 

The bungalows on Limeditch Road and Recreation Road had been subject to some external maintenance work by Housing & Care 21. From time to time, programmes of works were undertaken which may involve items such as new roofs, windows, doors, pointing etc. Keeping the bungalows in a good state of repair ensured quality affordable sheltered housing was provided for the older people of the borough.

 

The Council’s officers who oversee the partnership ensured that tenants were kept fully informed about any planned works and made sure that suitable tenant welfare arrangements were in place.

 

6.         Question from Hardacre1900 via Twitter

 

“Bloom and Grow – who came up with the rubbish taxi idea?  How much did that mess cost Oldham tax payers?”

 

Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives responded that this was a view of a small minority. Bloom and Grow was about co-operation and community involvement, and about the community and businesses working together. Oldham had successfully won the national award for the past two years and the regional award for the last four, and the judges this year had been very impressed with the quality of planting. The taxi centrepiece had cost Oldham tax payers nothing, as the taxi had been donated and the work done by volunteers.

 

7.         Question from Kimberley Leach via email

 

“Having seen your post on Facebook, I thought I would take the opportunity to enquire about something which me and my husband have questioned ourselves the last few years. 

 

We are a forces family who live married unaccompanied in Royton.  My husband who has served in the Royal Engineers for nearly nine years travels each week from a variety of camps back to our home.  I live at home with our seven month old daughter and work for the local authority.  

 

Having spoken to many other forces families in the same position, we are aware that other authorities provide alone what of a benefits package. For example, those who are married unaccompanied pay a single occupancy rate on the council tax for their home.  I have enquired about this each year and have been told it is not something which Oldham Council do for forces families.

We are also aware that other authorities, the nearest Rochdale being one of them provide free/reduced rate fee on local authority sports centres membership (due to reduced time at home to benefit from a full membership). 

 

There are probably many benefits which Oldham Council do provide which we as a family are unaware of. But I am aware that Oldham council have signed the Armed Forces Covenant however, the evidence of the support and benefit is very limited in particular for those which it is supposed to help the most.  The extension and promotion of this would be beneficial for many other forces families who live in the same position as I do in the Oldham area. 

 

I would be very grateful for you to put forward my question at this evenings council.” 

 

Councillor Shah, Cabinet Member for Performance and Corporate Governance responded that Oldham Council, as a member of the Oldham Co-operative Commission, signed the Armed Forces Community Covenant in October 2013.  We were proud to sign up as we recognised the importance of our Armed Forces and their families as well as the moral obligation between the nation, the government and the Armed Forces which the covenant embodies. The Covenant encouraged local communities to support Armed Forces personnel, and their families in their area and promote understanding and awareness among the public of issues affecting the Armed Forces community.

 

The Council knew that actions spoke louder than words and had:

 

·         worked with local businesses, through the town centre partnership, to introduce a range of special offers and discounts for armed forces and reserve personnel in over 60 local stores in Oldham.

 

·         worked with the Royal British Legion to provide an outreach desk in Access Oldham every Tuesday from 10-12 especially to provide support and guidance.

 

·         introduced a Reservist Policy to support currently serving personnel and provide fair terms and conditions of employment.

·         begun exploring whether there were more opportunities to introduce discounts for Armed Forces personnel and their families.

 

There was an Armed Forces page on the council website giving lots of advice and information about support agencies. There was also the Oldham Remembers website which, in this centenary year, celebrated and remembered the significant contribution Oldham people made during the First World War as well as providing information about upcoming events.

 

In respect of the specific question around Council tax discounts, this was not something this Council currently offered and Councillor Shah committed to looking into it. She suggested that this was done with with the Greater Manchester partners with whom the Council was working closely on other Armed Forces issues.

 

If Mrs. Leach would like to discuss any of these issues with Councillor Shah, she would be very happy to meet with her.

 

The following questions were submitted by Councillors on Ward or District Matters: (25 mins)

 

1.         Councillor Fielding to Councillor Hibbert

 

“I am in receipt of dozens of queries from local residents regarding the condition of Hulmes Road and Lord Lane in Failsworth. After Oldham Road, these roads are arguably the busiest in Failsworth acting as one of the main thoroughfares through the town. Could Council please confirm if and when these roads will come up for resurfacing under the priority routes re-surfacing programme?”

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that Hulmes Road (Boundary to Lord Lane) and Lord Lane (full length) had been allocated a budget for the 2015-16 Capital Programme and work will be carried out this financial year.

 

Due to the Lord Lane / Hulmes Road carriageway requiring different levels of intervention, the work will be carried out in two phases. Phase 1 which includes the section of Ashton Rd West to Clive Road will commence on 3^rd August 2015 for approximately 5 days. Phase 2 which includes the section of Lord Lane and Hulmes Road between Clive Road and the boundary will commence within the next 6 weeks and will take approximately 2 weeks.

 

2.        Councillor Shuttleworth to Councillor Hibbert

 

“With the metrolink service now well established and being well supported by residents throughout Oldham including Chadderton, may I seek clarification from our representative on TfGM or relevant Cabinet Member as to:

1.    when the service frequency will increase to every 6 minutes as previously indicated;

2.    and when can we expect to see double units becoming the norm as all too often, especially at peak times, many passengers are unable to be seated for reasons as stated in my opening comments.”

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that TfGM currently deployed as many doubles as possible, catering to the highest levels of demand they saw on the network. When they launch the 6-minute service, they will have fewer trams available to comprise double units, however the carrying capacity overall will be increased, enabling Metrolink to carry more passengers. TfGM will continue to monitor demand and will add doubles where they are most needed, subject to the availability of trams. The Council will be pushing for more trams, in the best interests of the people of Oldham, as this is an exceptionally well-used service.

 

3.         Councillor Roberts to Councillor Brownridge

 

“Please can the relevant Cabinet Member confirm when action will be taken to improve the paths in Royton Cemetery which are uneven and in need of repair and maintenance and when Cemetery Road (as the name suggests the road used to enter the cemetery) will be resurfaced?”

 

Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives responded that the Council undertook a periodic review of its building assets over a five year rolling programme of quinquennial surveys that informed the capital maintenance programme. Unfortunately, at the moment the Council had identified circa £35m of priority works that were required at various premises, which included cemeteries, but had a £3-4m fund to address such priority issues, so this budget had already been committed to works that were deemed as an essential priority, to maintain the operational use of buildings and to address health and safety matters.

 

The Councillor will request that the cemetery is inspected by Unity Partnership to review and update the condition of the footpaths and road surfaces, and will respond to any priority items reported thereafter both from a responsive maintenance and planned maintenance perspective.    

 

4.         Councillor Harkness to Councillors Hibbert and Akhtar   

 

“On 28th July, a public meeting will be held with local residents from Dobcross and Diggle about their traffic concerns relating to the new Saddleworth School.

Residents are particularly concerned that Dobcross could become a rat-run and that access to Diggle could become unsafe.

I welcome the highways consultation events that have already taken place (albeit a little belatedly) and appreciate that the planning application will permit a public consultation on these issues.

However it is a little unfortunate that the planning applications and highways applications will be submitted before the public meeting takes place in Dobcross.

My fear is that this will lead to more accusations that the council does not listen to the public.

I know that over the new Saddleworth School that this is not so, so can I have please ask the Cabinet Member for assurances that the council will continue to listen openly to public concerns, will consider options such as parking options or enforceable access only through Dobcross centre, and will leave no stone unturned in a bid to address the real concerns of local residents?”

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that the residents of Dobcross could be reassured that their views and ideas suggested at the meeting on the 28th July will be taken into account and considered before any highways works that would impact upon Dobcross are finalised. The Councillor had already met with Councillor McCann and Harkness on this issue.

 

The works that could have a direct impact upon Dobcross do not require planning consent and would be achieved using Highways Acts powers. 

 

The Council was committed to continuing further informal consultation during the coming months in addition to the statutory consultation requirements so that it could design a final highways scheme that achieved the right balance in terms of pupil and highway safety, traffic flows and value for money.

 

5.         Councillor Toor to Councillor Brownridge

 

“After a spate of Arson attacks on the Fitton Arms pub in Fitton Hill, I am extremely concerned at the Health & Safety situation on the site. The pub poses a serious threat to the safety of local residents. Can I ask the executive member responsible to provide an update on actions taken so far to secure the site, in the short term and what steps will be taken to secure a long term permanent solution?”

 

Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives responded that she shared the ward members' concerns as to the state of the old Fitton Arms building and surrounding land. Officers had been dealing with the condition of the building ever since it was purchased by the present private owner in early 2012. The owner did secure the building once, when it initially became open to access in June 2012, however the owner had faced a constant battle to secure the building and remove rubbish from its surroundings. The Council had met with the owner and had served numerous legal notices to secure the building and remove flytipping from the land. The works then had to be carried out by the Council contractors and recharged because the owner had not complied.

 

Recently officers had been informed that the owner was in advanced discussions as to the sale of the dilapidated building and land and the Councillor would ensure that any perspective new owner had a plan for the building and land and that local residents were consulted on any future use, if this came to pass. Officers would continue to put pressure on the present owner to act on his responsibilities in the short term.

 

6.        Councillor Alexander to Councillor Hibbert

 

“My question relates to the Northgate Estate and roundabout in the St James Ward. We are faced with the problem that the original builder Westbury homes, was bought out by Persimmon. Now after 10 years despite assurances from Persimmon earlier this year, they have not moved any further forward to complete the work which includes disabled access not aligned, top road surfacing, traffic signs, double yellow lines and kerb edgings needing resetting. Can the relevant cabinet member clarify what steps the council can and will take to ensure that this work is completed so the estate can be formally adopted?”

 

Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that he would like to thank Councillor Alexander for raising this issue regarding the condition of roads on the Northgate estate and her role in seeking to resolve this matter.

 

He fully appreciated the concerns of residents and members about the delay in these works being completed and could reassure Members that the Council was progressing this issue. A drawing submission to finalise the works was received from Persimmon Homes on 9^th July and officers in Unity Partnership were in discussion with them on details, so that a Section 38 agreement could be finalised to complete the remaining works.

 

As there were some changes required and this was a complicated scheme, officers anticipated that it would take up to 8 weeks to sign the agreement. The Councillor will ensure that officers keep ward members up to date on progress in negotiations, and projected timescales for completion of all the works and adoption.

 

7.         Councillor Ames to Councillor McMahon

 

“Being that is some time since the residents of Hollinwood were informed of any development at the Hollinwood Junction. Could the cabinet member for Regeneration update them on progress so far?”

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise Region responded that it had taken some time to remove the former gas holder and he was delighted to report that, in principle, terms had been agreed with National Grid. The delay had allowed for a more comprehensive development.

 

He was hopeful that funding for this activity would be obtained via the Greater Manchester Investment Fund and it would not fall on the Council to meeting funding.

 

8.         Councillor Sykes to Councillor McMahon

 

“Shaw and Crompton Councillors have been hearing recently from Market Traders that Oldham Council has had another change of heart about the relocation of Shaw Market.

 

Like its namesake, the children’s party game Musical Chairs, this seems to becoming a tale of Musical Markets.

 

At first this Administration wanted to move the Market onto the South side of Market Street that joins High Street, then the North side of Market Street adjoining Rochdale Road.

 

Now there are rumours that the Market will after all remain on its historic site until some un- specified time next year (2016).

 

Will the Leader confirm or deny whether Shaw Market is to move?

 

And if so where and when?

 

Or will he hold his hands up and admit – as I hope he will – that the Market can remain at its current location as per the wishes of local Councillors, the local community, market traders, high street shop keepers, the Police, and two of the largest employers in the Borough (Littlewoods and JD Williams).

 

And will he also agree to invest the money that that has clearly been budgeted for this year (2015/16) to revitalise Shaw Market by replacing the fixed market stalls with pop-up stalls.”

 

This solution will not only remove the shelter that attracts youths intent on anti-social behaviour but also provide more car-parking on non-Market Days, therefore contributing to the general vitality of Shaw’s District Centre.

 

After all the above solution is what local Councillors along with key agencies like the Police have been asking and campaigning for more years than I care to remember.”

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise Region responded that the Council was committed to the development of vibrant town centres, however Shaw market was not in a convenient location for shoppers and it would be a false economy to invest in the current site. There may be minor investment to attract traders and keep the market vibrant, but there was a strong business case for change. If the Council wanted to retain the market, it needed to support the change.

 

 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.