Agenda item

The Leader of the Main Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:

 

Question 1: 

 

“My first question to the Leader this evening concerns the recently launched public consultation on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

Not a very catchy title I am sure you will agree, but nonetheless a document that should command the attention of every member in this Chamber – and particularly any with an interest in the future of our Borough’s Green Belt.

The ten local authorities in Greater Manchester have drawn up plans to meet the projected future need for 227,000 new homes in the county, some 13,700 in this Borough.

This may seem an awful lot for Oldham, but Shaw & Crompton and Royton is really being targeted by the developers and may be even Oldham Council as we shall be expected to accommodate almost three thousand new homes plus vast tracks of land for industrial development.

These plans represent a massive land grab in our area and the devastation of our local Green Belt as new properties will be built at Cowlishaw, in the Beal Valley, Rushcroft, the Whitefield Farm area over to Newhey and around Gravelhole and Low Crompton.

Oldham Liberal Democrats firmly believe that our precious Green Belt should be protected.

Our Green Belt and open spaces are one of the things that makes us unique in Greater Manchester.  Some of us are old enough to remember those posters ‘Oldham A town in the country’ – it was true 20 odd years ago and is even truer now.

New homes should be built on former industrial Brownfield sites.

Existing planning permissions need to be actioned.

We should first look to build on derelict and unloved sites in our town centres and districts, convert every empty mill and factory into housing, force developers to build on sites already given planning permission, and bring Empty Homes back into use.

Only when all of these things have been done should we even consider developing vast tracks of our Green Belt.

We miles away from that stage yet.

And we also need to take account of the massive additional burden this will place on our local services and infrastructure.  These new houses will mean a lot more cars ono our busy roads, many more children needing local school place, more demand for medical centres, shops, and leisure facilities.

I recognise that everyone has the right to live in their own home and be adequately housed but the local burden seems to have been placed disproportionately on Shaw and Crompton and to be fair Royton.

So can the Leader tell me tonight what this Council will be doing to fight to protect our precious Green Belt from wanton development and what representations will be made to press the demand that there will be sufficient advanced investment to meet the increased demand placed onto our facilities and infrastructure in Shaw and Crompton and elsewhere in our Borough?”

 

Councillor Jean Stretton, Leader of the Council, responded that the Greater Manchester Strategic Framework (GMSF) was about addressing for decades to come the issue of housing and industrial provision and if the issue was not addressed now there would be consequences in the future.  It was necessary to provide homes for people in the borough or they would go out of the borough.  It was necessary to provide for the fact that the Revenue Support Grant was going away and the Council would be dependent on Council tax and business rates raised for the provision of services.  The Leader shared concerns about the infrastructure needing to be in place before any large scale developments were begun.  The Leader had raised this at Greater Manchester level that if a developers undertaking larger developments they would need to make a contribution to the infrastructure.  The Leader stated that there was not a choice, she agreed the developments which already had planning permission should be encouraged and to get rid of eyesore mills such as Hartford Mill.  It was also important to not build Band A and B homes but also aspirational homes.  In terms of the green belt, the loss of green belt may have to be accepted.  In the proposals in the GMSF would affect 3% which was below average of other boroughs.  The Leader agreed this would be difficult. If the provision of homes was not taken seriously for people in the borough, it would be a shame.

 

Question 2: 

 

“My second question relates to an issue that I have raised with the Leader and her predecessor on many occasions – the education of this Borough’s young people.

This time I want to address the proposed merger between Oldham College and Stockport College.  The proposed marriage with Tameside College is seemingly now off, Oldham and Stockport Colleges are apparently now the only two dancers still on the floor.

The key question is how is this in the best interests of our young people and Oldham’s potential students?  Just one of my worries is the inconvenience that such a merger will cause to local students without access to private transport.

Here are two examples:

Joe travelling from Denshaw to Stockport College faces a two hour journey there and a similar journey back.  He starts college at 9am.  He catches the 407 Stotts bus from the Junction Inn at 6.36 and is just fortunate to connect with the 6.49 83 service operated by First Manchester from Mumps.

This gets him on time to Piccadilly by 7.45 and he is able to connect with the 192 Stagecoach service 10 minutes later.  This drops him off on Wellington Road near Stockport College for 8.40 am.

As Joe needs to use three bus services – all run by different operators he needs to buy a System One Student Bus Saver ticket.  This costs £13.10 a week or £45.50 for a month.

If cost were not an issue, Joe could roughly halve his journey time if he caught the Metrolink tram from Mumps to Piccadilly Station, via Victoria (£3.40 return, half-hour approx.) and then caught the train to Stockport (£5.30 return, 10 mins followed by a 10 min walk).

If he were aged 16 to 19 he could get a Scholars Permit to enable him to travel for half the single fare each way.

Emma travelling from Oozewood, Royton to Stockport College, also starting at 9am.  Emma’s journey is about as long as Joes.  She walks to Rochdale Road (10 mins) and catches the 6.48 am 24 First Manchester Bus to Manchester.

This gets her there on time at 7.44, which is unusual as the bus is generally delayed by peak traffic approaching the city centre.  Emma joins Joe in catching the 192 bus and they sit together on the Stagecoach Service, both alighting on Wellington Road.

Emma would also need to buy a System One Student Bus Saver ticket.  Emma would probably not save any time going into Oldham to catch a tram as she would have to catch a 409 bus and then wait at a tram stop.

However she could join Joe in getting the train from Piccadilly to Stockport and back (£5.30 return, 10 mins followed by a 10m walk).

This is surely a far from ideal arrangement in a Borough where we aspire to drive up educational attainment and make the best choices available to all of our students.

Can the Leader tell me tonight, what is being done to ensure that the vocational courses that remain on offer in Oldham will remain attractive to local students and relevant to the needs of our local employers?  And what help and support will this Council seek to put in place for those students who are forced to travel to Stockport because of the merger and struggle to do so?”

 

Councillor Jean Stretton, Leader of the Council, responded that a meeting had taken place between Cabinet Members and the Colleges to discuss the issues.  The Leader clarified that the decision was not the Council’s and at some point in the future a position would need to be decided.  It was clear that the proposals would be for a provision up to Level 3 across the curriculum at any college in the merger.  There were ongoing conversations between the colleges on the final configuration.  The Leader shared the concerns of provision not being at a local college.  The colleges had been asked to address Overview and Scrutiny Board.  There would also be a meeting in early December for a discussion on business plans and more detail could then be provided on proposals.

 

Councillor Sheldon, in the absence of the Leader of the Conservative Party, asked a question regarding the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and the necessity to build more homes.  He sought reassurance that the register on Tree Preservation Orders and Footpaths was being kept up to date.  He referred to his question at the previous meeting and raised another query related to new homes being built across footpaths and the footpath being diverted.

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that the Council had a dedicated tree officer and dedicated footpath officer who were consulted on planning applications when they were received with regard to any implications for trees and footpaths.  The Leader asked Councillor Sheldon to provide specific details to ensure that the appropriate officer responded.

 

The Mayor reminded the meeting that Council had agreed that, following the Leaders’ allocated questions, questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council.

 

1.       Councillor Fielding asked the following question:

 

“Will the cabinet member for education join with me in congratulating Mather Street Primary school in Failsworth West for achieving 'GOOD' in it's most recent Ofsted report? Will the cabinet member further join me in celebrating that the result of this most recent inspection means that all seven mainstream Failsworth primary schools are now rated 'GOOD' or 'OUTSTANDING'; further proof, not that any was needed, that Failsworth is a fantastic place to live and raise a family?”

 

Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that all seven mainstream schools to be rated as good or outstanding was an outstanding achievement.  The dedication of the headteachers was acknowledged for this achievement.  There had also been an improvement at Failsworth School following two years of an unfavourable situation.

 

2.       Councillor Ali asked the following question:

 

“As people in this chamber are aware, Central Government year on year is taking away Revenue Support Grant from Oldham resulting in this Council having to make some tough choices to achieve savings in order to balance the budget. The impact nonetheless is being felt within our communities. We can only hope this government comes to its senses and does not continue to put undue pressure on towns like Oldham.

We are where are we are due to no choice of our own. It is going to be expected of Councils like Oldham to generate its own income. To generate the level of income to match the Revenue Support Grant is not going to be an easy matter. We will require an income growth strategy that is second to none. My question to the leadership is what action has been put in place so far to increase income generation for this town?”

 

Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and HR responded that the Council relied on three forms of grants:  Revenue Support Grant, Council Tax and Business Rates.  The Revenue Support Grant had been cut by £10m and these cuts were set to continue and it was difficult to replace the income.  Councillor Jabbar referred to the GMSF and new housing being built to generate income.  There had been a number of sites approved but not acted upon.  The Council was working to increase the housing supply to generate income from council tax and business rates.   Councillor Jabbar referred to the Old Town Hall which had been brought back into use to generate business rates and the work to bring Marks and Spencers to Mumps for the increase in the retail offer and generation of business rates.  There had also been an improvement in the collection of council tax and business rates.

 

3.       Councillor Haque asked the following question:

 

“I would like to congratulate all those involved in the refurbishment of the Old Town Hall and the transformation into the cinema complex. Can the Cabinet Member responsible for Employment and Skills please update us on how many local residents have been recruited for jobs in the development?”

 

Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Employment and Skills responded that the opening of the Oldham Town Hall was a monumental day for Oldham with 115 jobs created with 82 filled by Oldham residents.  A breakdown was provided as follows:

·       Odeon Cinema/Costa/Cleaning Company:  70 jobs created; 55 filled with Oldham Residents

·       Molino’s:  20 jobs created, 15 filled with Oldham residents

·       Gourmet Burger Kitchen:  25 jobs created; 12 filled with Oldham residents

There was no information available from Nando’s.

 

4.       Councillor Murphy asked the following question:

 

“Research by the Federation of Small Businesses has recently revealed that complaints over potholes across Greater Manchester have exceeded 16,000 in a year, and that Oldham recorded the highest number of potholes of any of the Greater Manchester authorities between April 2014 and April 2015, with 3,594 being reported. It is interesting to contrast this to neighbouring Rochdale which only had 295 in the same period.

Now it may well be that Oldham motorists are particularly observant of potholes, or particularly less-inclined to tolerate them, leading to more reports but being the pot-hole capital of Greater Manchester is not I am sure an accolade that any of us would aspire to in this chamber.

Can the Cabinet Member please tell me how many potholes were reported in the period April 2015 to April 2016, and what is being done to improve our standing in this pothole league of shame?”

 

Councillor Fida Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, responded that the information was misleading in that it heavily relied on each authority’s definition and recording of pothole service requests.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that the number of complaints regarding potholes during the 2015-16 financial year was 2293 being a significant reduction from 3.594 the previous year.  This improvement was a reflection on the investment which had been made over the last few years both in inspections and new equipment to undertake cost efficient repairs.

 

5.       Councillor Dearden asked the following question:

 

“With winter and the flu season approaching, could the cabinet member responsible for Public Health please update us on the current situation regarding implementation of the national Childhood Flu programme and also Immunisation of the high risk adult population?”

 

Councillor Moores, Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing responded that reducing flu transmission particularly in children (who were known to ‘super spreaders’) would avert many cases of severe flu and flu related deaths in older adults and people at high risk.  Therefore, extending flu programmes to children especially the 2 – 7 year olds was key.  The Children’s Flu immunisation programme delivered by Intrahealth commenced in October.  Uptake figures indicated that over 50% of Schools were meeting the PHE target of 40% and over.  To address schools which may need more support in the promotion of this programme to parents, news articles had been submitted to the Oldham Evening Chronicle and Asian Leader to raise public awareness.  Also, the PHE Screening and Immunisation team had developed strategies which included meeting headteachers to address any concerns parents may have.  In support of the high risk adult population to keep them healthy during the winter months, GP practices, who were central to this programme were offering flu clinics during the evenings and weekends and texted reminder messages to ensure attendance.  The PHE Screening and Immunisation Team had commissioned road shows throughout the month of November to increase the profile of the flu vaccine.  In Oldham, this initiative would take place at Tesco and free soup and leaflets would be handed out to shoppers.  Also, the local authority had launched a social media campaign which included the use of Facebook and Twitter and had success in reaching nearly 31,000 people who had seen the flu promotion online and 11,500 people who watched the video clips.  The performance monitoring of both Flue programmes were led by the CCG which involved other key stakeholders including the Council.  The results for the first quarter would be published in 2 weeks time.

 

At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.

 

RESOLVED that the questions and responses provided be noted.