(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 screens in the Council Chamber.
The following questions had been submitted:
1. Question received from Neil Hardiker:
“Please can you share with me the current details of the following? Acres/hectares of land within the OMBC boundary designated as green belt, OPOL and land reserved for future development and the percentage of the land within the council boundary which each of these 3 categories represents?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the total land in the Oldham MBC boundary was 14234.6 hectares (ha); Green Belt: 6254 ha (43.9%); Land Reserved for Future Development (LRFD) – Bullcote Lane, Royton: 2 ha (0.01%); and OPOL: 314.92 ha (2.21%).
2. Phil Howarth, Fitton Hill Bulldogs asked the following question:
“Please can the Councillors of Oldham confirm that our club should be allowed a long lease on the playing fields at Rosary Road to the rear of what was Fitton Hill Senior Schools and then the councils CPD offices?”
Councillor Jean Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the Council acknowledged the wider social and environmental well-being benefits which would result from the club's proposals. Progressing a disposal of land via a 25 year lease was paused to allow for consideration of wider strategic proposals. This work had now concluded. The Council would be contacting the Club shortly to discuss the way forward.
3. Question received from Paul Turner:
“The Cowlishaw development is put to planning this month. As this is OPOL protected land. I trust OMBC will be rejecting it.”
Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant on Friday, 2nd September 2016.
4. Question received from John McGuill:
“Morecambe has a statue of #EricMorecambe Timperley has #Frank Sidebottom why don’t we get one for Eric Sykes?”
Councillor Barbara Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that Oldham was lucky by having a number of famous citizens. The cost of statues was controversial. In the current financial climate new statues would not be a first priority. The Council did celebrate famous citizens at Gallery Oldham and would continue to do so at the Heritage and Arts Centre when built. The Gallery had a portrait of Eric Sykes which had been on permanent display in the Oldham Stories exhibition for the past three years.
5. Joe Fitzpatrick asked the following question:
“Bearing in mind the millions of pounds of public money that has been spent on the scheme to refurbish the old Town Hall and the ongoing subsidies and financial inducements be offered to potential tenants of this building, will the council insist that employees are paid the living wage, rather than the minimum, when they work for a company renting space in the town hall?”
Councillor Jean Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the old Town Hall was a major regeneration scheme for the town centre and members and the community were excited about the progress on site and the new brands this development had attracted. Whilst the Council could not mandate the employment and wage practices of new employers the Council was supporting recruitment to new jobs via the Get Oldham Working Programme and the opportunity remained for employers to sign up to the Councils fair employment charter as part of this process. The council would maintain positive relations with all new investors in Oldham as part of this process.
6. Question received from David Jennings:
“My question relates to the term time only pro-rate salary calculation for HLTA and TA staff in Oldham schools.
This is not a national wage structure; it is at the discretion of each authority. This policy equates to around 8 weeks of enforced, unpaid leave for these key workers, with a knock on effect for pension entitlement. It also impacts unfairly on the gender pay gap, given most HLTA & TA workers are female.
In light of the recent publicity around the campaign to re-instate annual salaries for these important education workers - in particular the current resistance to change in Durham - will Oldham take a lead and re-instate annual payments?
HLTA’s already do perhaps 75% of the work of a fully qualified teacher, for around 50% of the pay – to have this reduced pro-rata to term-time only is a slap in the face for staff who are expected to attend sports days, parents’ evenings and other events out of hours, and who have to act on lesson plans and other staff communications in their own time.
Many HLTA’s in particular can be the sole ‘teacher’ in class, delivering the entire lesson. They are qualified, well trained staff - and yet they are treated almost like casual labour. There are suggestions nationally that these key workers should start to take the same view of their personal time as the authorities do of their salaries - and 'work to rule'. This would involve arriving at five to work, leaving on the dot, taking a full lunch break, ignoring 'out of hours' work communications (eg checking lesson plans via First Class) and any other work activity during their own time. If they did take this action, schools - and results - would inevitably suffer.
I have a relative who is an HLTA in an Oldham primary school, so I know what her workload is, and just how dedicated she is to the job, the school and the children. Oldham has recently, quite rightly and very publicly, praised the improvement in exam results this year - and yet these key workers who contribute to this success are not even paid a full annual salary.
Will Oldham Council therefore review the exploitative and punitive policy of term-time only, pro-rata salary payments to HLTA and/or TA staff in schools?”
Councillor Amanda Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that there were no plans to review the contracts of HLTA’s and jobs were evaluated by the Oldham Job Evaluations Team. Staff were paid all year round on a Term Time Only (TTO) basis. Oldham only employed a small number of HLTA’s as the majority of classroom support staff were Teaching Assistants. HLTA’s could deliver lessons but this was to complement the professional work of teachers. They should not be undertaking 75% of the work nor should they be expected to. If individuals felt they were being asked to undertake work for beyond that they are contracted for, they should discuss the matter with the Head Teacher in the first instance or seek advice of their trade union representative.
7. Question received from Becky Wright:
“What are you doing about the fireworks waking everybody up after midnight every night?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that this was a difficult issue but officers and partners would review options and report back on anything that could be done in partnership to work to help control the problem.
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 Malik asked the following question:
“As you are aware when Westwood Park was closed, it was agreed there will be a play area on Cottam Street and a 7 a side playing field on land at Westhulme Avenue. Can the relevant Cabinet member provide an update on progress and when residents can expect these facilities to be ready and open?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the scheme had been put out to public consultation to gather local residents input and design work was due to start next month. This would be followed by a planning application and it was estimated that work would begin on site early next spring.
2. Councillor Garry asked the following question:
“I am in receipt of numerous complaints from residents regarding the cuts on the 181 and 182 bus routes, which is causing huge disruption to residents across the borough. I fully understand that this is a commercial bus route but can we, as a Council ask the bus company to reconsider this decision?”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the issued had recently been discussed with the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and a meeting had been arranged with TfGM and the bus operator to discuss bus services. The Buses Bill, which if it became law, would give Greater Manchester the opportunity to have more control over bus services.
3. Councillor Brock asked the following question:
“A number of residents have contacted me expressing concern about the spread of Himalayan Balsam on open space around Failsworth, particularly in Daisy Nook Country Park. Does the Council have a policy on the control of this invasive species which is damaging the native plant and wildlife in the area?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, responded that this was a problem across the borough and an extremely difficult weed to deal with as it reproduced easily. This weed was not as damaging as Japanese Knotweed and had been treated largely by volunteers and various groups to try to control the outbreaks.
4. Councillor Harkness asked the following question:
“Last year, the government provided grant compensation to our parish councils for loss of income. This was £36,494 for the Saddleworth Parish Council and £19,337 for Shaw and Crompton Parish Council.
Unfortunately despite this grant being given specifically for parish councils and not to support general borough council funding, Oldham council are consulting on how the withdrawal of this grant will affect the parish councils budgets. Will the Cabinet Member assure the residents of both parishes that Oldham council will continue to passport this grant to the parish councils and not include it in general borough council funding?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and HR responded that the grant mentioned was actually given in 2013/14 as part of the settlement when the Revenue Support Grant was £85m. The figures were no longer ringfenced and the in the current financial year the Revenue Support Grant had been cut by 50% to £40.5m with next year forecasted to drop to £30.4m. That would be a reduction of £54m from when the figure was set. This clearly presented a major problem to the Council. Other authorities had decided to reduce the grants to parish councils. The Council was consulting on reducing the grant to Parish Councils by £10k which was roughly a 17% cut. The District Partnership budgets had been reduced by 26%.
5. Councillor Fielding asked the following question:
“Virgin Media have recently begun to lay cables to provide their services across Failsworth. Many residents have expressed concern that they had not received adequate information as part of the notification of the works, particularly regarding the positioning of utility cabinets and the exact date that access to their property may be affected. Could the cabinet member ensure that, as this work progresses across the rest of Failsworth, virgin media are encouraged to adapt their communications plans so that residents are better informed and can plan appropriately for the disruption?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the Council were made aware of the Virgin Media expansion of their network across England following which Unity Officers requested further information with a follow up meeting arranged to discuss the issues. As part of the Greater Manchester Road Application Permit Scheme (GMRAPS) pre-site meetings were held to discuss and agree conditions, one of which was a requirement to letter drop two weeks prior to the works starting. Breach of any condition imposed on a permit by a local authority leads to a fine and the utility was brought in to discuss at monthly performance and engagement meetings. If any member was made aware of a breach and an area which had not been leafleted, members were asked to let Councillor Stretton know and officers would act accordingly.
6. Councillor Toor asked the following question:
“As winter is approaching in the near future, my question is, are we prepared for the bad weather? What safety measures are in place to avoid accidents especially there are lots of elderly people in some parts of my ward?”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, responded that planning for the coming winter started when last winter finished. The grit stocks had been replenished over the summer, all winter gritting vehicles had been serviced and prepared, and the dedicated team of specialist drivers had been allocated their rotas. Over the coming weeks, workers would also be out filling the 596 grit bins around the Borough so residents could make sure pavements were free from ice and snow for safety. Over the coming months it was very important that everyone did their bit. The Council was doing as much as it could with the resources available, but everyone could help out in their own way, such as helping neighbours grit their path or simply knocking on doors to see if they were okay. The Council would be doing as much as it could to keep residents informed about what was going on across the Borough and urged residents to log onto the Council website and to listen to road and weather reports to keep up to date with the latest news.
7. Councillor Ali asked the following question:
“The Green Dividend Fund 2015 was a £100k one-off fund provided by the council and managed by Voluntary Action Oldham. The aim of the fund was to spark and support community initiatives to make places across the borough greener through gardening and/or landscaping projects. In Chadderton North, Councillors went to lengths to promote this event to our residents. This encouraged residents to come together, putting real thought into how they could improve their area, coming up with ideas themselves, applying and then being successful in winning bids to transform some of our back Alleys. There was genuine commitment from our residents, who took responsibility for the cleanliness of the alleyways and have now started 'Green Growing' projects. it has also made a huge impact in bringing the residents together and building on much needed community cohesion. The residents were well supported by Chadderton District Officers and the Green Ambassador. I'm sure there are many other examples of such green projects across the borough. The last round of funding deadline was on the 27th May 2016. My question is: as the Green Dividend Fund is proving to make a real difference within our communities across the borough and there is still a much need for such community initiatives. I wanted to know whether this Council would support the continuation of this fund.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the Council was committed to finding new ways of working and echoed that the dividend had been successful with individual ‘greening’ projects across the borough. The Council was pleased at the level of community take up for the initiative and recognised that there was an appetite to do more. Unfortunately, due to budget pressures, it could not be guaranteed that there would be further funding at the moment. The Green Dividend Ambassador support would remain in place for the next 12 months. The Green Dividend Ambassadors provided a dedicated resource for groups for the development of unique green space initiatives and provided advice and support to projects. The Ambassadors were also currently exploring other funding streams. Proposals for potential projects were invited to be brought forward. The scheme had been a benefit to the borough.
8. Councillor Blyth asked the following question:
“Can the Cabinet Member please tell me the demolition of the old Shaw Market site was such a shambles and why a security guard was injured as a result? Ward members warned you that the demolition of stalls at the existing defunct market site in Shaw had to be handled properly, but it was not. The demolition was started in the middle of the school holidays. The site was left unattended on the first night during which the youth’s knocked all the secure fencing down and then threw all of the demolition materials all over Westway and Back Market Street. I alerted our officers and the police and the next day a single security guard was on site. This aggravated the youths even more. I telephoned the police and then my partner and I went over to the security guard to give him some support. The police took over 25 minutes to arrive. In the meantime, I had telephoned two colleagues, Councillors Murphy and Williamson, who quickly joined us.
This tense and dangerous stand-off carried on for three further nights.
So I would like to ask the Cabinet Member why appropriate safeguards and precautions were not put in place before the work started, and why the work commenced in the middle of the school holidays?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the works to demolish Shaw Market were condensed as much as possible and deliberately scheduled for the school holidays. This was to minimise disruption for businesses and the users of Shaw Town Centre during this quieter period. The demolitions works fully commenced on the Monday and by Friday lunchtime, the site was fully cleared of all fencing and equipment. As soon as it became apparent that local youths sought to cause disruption to the works, additional measures were taken. The question posed failed to recognise that, in addition to the introduction of extra on-site security, a multi-agency response was also put in place involving the Police and the Council’s Outreach Youth Team which was effective in stopping any further escalation of the problems and that daily updates were provided to local ward councillors. Shaw Market was successfully relocated to Market Street to secure its future – the demolition of the fixed market stalls had provided Shaw Town Centre with much needed additional car parking spaces. Whilst it was unfortunate that these young people sought to target the works site over a two night period, the demolition works have removed the shelter which had encouraged them to congregate in the area and it was sincerely hoped that this would relieve the long-term problem for those residents overlooking the former market.
9. Councillor Mushtaq asked the following question:
“I have been contacted by an Alexandra Ward resident asking me to support the concept of safe space for cycling in a broad context encompassing transport, health and wellbeing and climate. As part of the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy there is funding and we need to ensure that some of this goes towards safer cycling routes in my ward and the wider borough. Can the relevant Cabinet member please inform us of the strategy to increase safety for cyclists which will hopefully lead to an increase in the number of cyclists on our roads.”
Councillor Fida Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental responded that the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 included the creation of a comprehensive network of on and off-road walking and cycling routes that made it easier and safer for people to walk and cycle to key local destinations. Achieving this would help to increase levels of physical activity, reduce the number of short trips being made by care, which would make local towns and neighbourhoods more attractive and reduce harmful emissions and traffic noise. The Transport Strategy itself did not have any additional funding associated with it. The main source of funding for transport, including cycling, was from central government via funding competitions. Oldham was proactive in ensuring schemes in the Oldham borough were included when GM bids were compiled and had been successful in securing funding for a number of cycle schemes in recent competitions which included £1.1 million through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund; £0.5m through the first round of the Cycle City Ambition Grant Fund; and £1.2m through the second round of the Cycle City Ambition Grant Fund.
10. Councillor Hewitt asked the following question:
“The law states that you must not set off fireworks between 11pm and 7am, except for Bonfire Night, when the cut off is midnight; New Year’s Eve, Diwali and Chinese New Year, when the cut off is 1am.
The law also states that when buying fireworks you can only buy fireworks (including sparklers) from registered sellers for private use on these dates: 15 October to 10 November, 26 to 31 December, 3 days before Diwali and Chinese New Year. At other times you can only buy fireworks from licensed shops. I have had two written complaints from local residents and many verbal complaints from parents of young children and pet owners about fireworks being set off late at night after 11.00 pm in the middle of the week, sometimes even in the early hours of the morning especially at weekends. The majority of the complaints have come from parents with young children and parents of disabled children, about a third of the verbal complaints are from pet owners whose animals are frightened by the explosions that the fireworks are making. Can we get some partnership working together to identify where these fireworks parties are when they break the law and prosecute them and their suppliers, if they are illegally bought?
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded and referred to her previous answer. A discussion group with partners was being set up to review options and would report back on what could be done and would also address supply.
11. Councillor Roberts asked the following question:
“I have received complaints from several Royton North residents about the condition of Thornham Mill on Oozewood Road – the fabric of the building is deteriorating, there are concerns about children and young people gaining access to the site and reports of rats. I have followed up all these issues with the Council’s Planning department, Environmental Services and the Police. However, I believe that a more permanent solution is needed. Could the relevant Cabinet member advise whether the Council can take any further steps to either bring the site back into use or to pursue an alternative use for the site with the owners?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the property was privately owned, not listed and was shown to be in poor condition and ‘at risk’. Previous reviews had indicated that the site was suitable for redevelopment and it was likely to be considered for residential accommodation in view of demand and need for new housing. The ability to redevelop the site was limited by virtue of the fact that there was telecommunication equipment on the roof which was leased and parts of the site were in multiple private ownership and, therefore for redevelopment to progress, a developer would need to liaise with a number of parties. Councillors had agreed to contact the owner and advise them that the building needs to be kept in a decent condition and to see if a longer term solution could be found to the problem.
12. Councillor Sheldon asked the following question:
“I am concerned that there is too long of a delay in answering residents’ concerns about tree preservation orders from our arboricultural dept. I have two residents who have voiced concerns in Dacres Drive Greenfield and Abels Lane Uppermill, and to date they have not received a satisfactory answer to their questions. I have also a resident on Manchester Road Greenfield who has complained about council-owned trees which now completely take the daily sunlight from her garden. Her complaint has not been resolved in any way at all.
Please can I ask the Cabinet Member responsible for this department to ensure a reply is sent to each person, whose personal details I have with me.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the trees located at Dacres Drive and Abels Lane were on land that was not owned by the Council and that the matters had been dealt with and appropriate responses had been provided. If this was not the case, she asked to be contacted so she could arrange for the appropriate response. There were a number of trees on Manchester Road which were currently awaiting inspection over the next month. Residents had been informed and would be told of the outcome.
13. Councillor McLaren asked the following question:
“Residents of the Firwood Park Estate in Chadderton are increasingly concerned about the condition of a wall at the corner of Middleton Road and Firwood Park (alongside 1 - 5 Firwood Park). The wall is in a very poor state of repair and local residents consider it to be dangerous. Ownership of the wall and the responsibility for carrying out the repairs appears to be unclear. What steps, if any, are the Council taking to resolve this matter?”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that according to the Council’s records the wall was not in Council ownership and therefore the potential interventions were limited. The Council would however work with residents and appropriate officers across the Council for a positive solution to be identified.
14. Councillor Dean asked the following question:
“Could the Cabinet Member for highways tell me of the progress in lifting the bus lane order on Huddersfield Rd? The suspension of the bus lanes on Huddersfield Rd has been in place for over. 4 years. And local residents do not want the bus lanes back as it creates traffic gridlock.”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the bus lane on Huddersfield Road was temporarily removed in Summer 2014, following resurfacing work, and a study undertaken at the request of Members to determine whether it should be formally reinstated or removed. The study also looked at the Ripponden Road bus lane as the two bus lanes were closely linked. While the study was undertaken, signage was amended to allow general traffic to use both lanes along Huddersfield Road. As a result of the study, and consultation with Transport for Greater Manchester and bus operators, the temporary suspension of the bus lanes on Huddersfield Road and Ripponden Road for a period of eighteen months was approved. The temporary order became effective at the end of June 2016 and subsequent arrangements were implemented for the removal of the remaining road markings and signing along both corridors. The situation would be monitored with Transport for Greater Manchester and bus operators, and a decision would be made as to whether the bus lane suspension order would be made permanent at the end of the 18 month period. To date, there had not been any reported adverse effects on bus services.
15. Councillor Steven Bashforth asked the following question:
“For a long time now HGVs have been overnighting on Edge Lane Street in Royton. This causes problems with noise and disturbance to local residents from the vehicle engines, blocking of the footpaths and rubbish including human waste being left behind. I have asked the police, environmental services and highways to help prevent and stop this practice but to no avail. Can the relevant Cabinet Member arrange for me to meet with appropriate officers with a view to devising a solution?”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services agreed to arrange the meeting.
16. Councillor McCann asked the following question:
“I have noted of late an ever increasing number of stone robbing incidents from various sites / walls in Saddleworth (and also in some rural parts of Shaw). In some instances walls are now down to three or four courses from an original waist height. Could the Cabinet Member advise if there is any programme of restoring and rebuilding the walls so affected, and if so can this be done in such a way – for example by cementing in the stone – that makes theft more unlikely? The volume is becoming such that District Partnerships can no longer deal with this on a local basis, as they have done in the case of High Street, Uppermill.”
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, responded that the Council was aware of this issue of either the suspected theft or vandalism of masonry on Ladcastle Road and Sugar Lane which was being investigated. There was currently no framework programme to rebuild the damaged retaining walls, but funding was being sought to effect the repairs.
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.