Agenda item

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

 

Question 1:

 

“For my first question tonight I would like to refer the Leader to an initiative launched in connection with the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) by the Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham on the 17^th of last month.

Mayor Burnham announced that he wanted to move away from the ‘developer-led, green belt approach of the past’.

This is an announcement that both I and my ward colleagues in Shaw and Crompton, as well as thousands of our constituents, will welcome, as in the original GMSF proposals Shaw and Crompton stood to be swamped by almost 3,000 new homes, other tracts of land were designated for industrial development, and our green belt and green spaces would be decimated.

After his election, the Oldham Liberal Democrats wrote to Andy Burnham to ask for the (and I quote) ‘opportunity to work with you to establish a revised plan that is acceptable to local ward members and our constituents, which mirrors our aspirations for housing and economic development in Greater Manchester’.

It has always been our view that there is no justification for the construction of a large number of properties (or indeed any properties) on Green Belt or Other Protected Open Land (OPOL) before new homes are first built on Brownfield sites, on sites where planning permission for housing development has already been granted and upon many derelict and the unloved site in our town centres and districts.

We also believe that every empty mill and factory should be converted and use for housing and that the large number of empty homes across Greater Manchester should be brought back into use.

Mayor Burnham has now invited all ten Leaders of the Greater Manchester authorities to nominate a town for inclusion in his Town Centre Challenge.

The Mayor is proposing to work with each council to bring together housing providers, public and private landowners, developers, community groups and other key stakeholders in a concerted effort to unlock the potential in these town centres, particularly to deliver ‘viable housing markets and sustainable communities.’

At his launch event, Mayor Burnham promised to use new planning powers and Mayoral grants ‘to build a new future for those towns through higher density mixed and affordable housing, with local retail and leisure facilities and supported by transport and digital connectivity.’

This sounds like potentially heady stuff, for we are not ‘Luddites’, Mr. Mayor, we recognise we need to release more land for more homes for more people.

What we do not believe in is concreting over the green bits!

His plan appears to hold that promise – with an emphasis seemingly placed upon Brownfield development in towns, rather than the ‘death of Green Belt by concrete’ approach we saw previously.

Mayor Burnham has asked Oldham to bring forward a town centre of its choice to be his development partner so Mr Mayor I would like to ask the Leader tonight whether Oldham will be nominating a town or district for the Town Centre Challenge?

If we will do make a nomination, how elected members and the public can become involved in the selection?

Will we have a say on the selection and when do we have to make our nomination by?”

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that whilst every district could nominate here in Oldham the Town Centre Master Plan for the centre of Oldham was a priority.  Additional powers that the Mayor could bring, looking at Compulsory Purchase Orders, were not needed for the Town Centre Challenge in Oldham.  If CPOs were required, the individual district would have to bring forward the money.  The principle of brownfield sites to be supported before greenfield sites was supported.  The ambition to turn every mill and factory into housing was not realistic.  The mill would have to available.  A number of mills and had been identified in Oldham as empty or derelict and the Council would want to do what had been in Hollinwood.  If the owner of the mill did not want to sell or bring forward the building for development that could not be enforced as there were no viable powers.  The higher density development was clear in the Town Centre Master Plan.  The Council wanted the right kind of development and the right kind of housing appropriate for the people of Oldham.  The GMSF consultation would be reconvened next June and members would have the opportunity to contribute.  Work was ongoing to respond to the consultation and revise in some cases some proposals going forward.

 

Question 2:

 

“I would now like to return to another very important issue that has again been raised in recent motions proposed by both sides in this chamber recently – the desperate plight of the homeless.

It is an issue that is particularly topical and poignant at this time of the year with the onset of winter.

I would like to make a practical suggestion that I feel could make a big difference in this Borough.

I am referring to the Big Change Scheme, a charitable programme that operates in Rochdale, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds where donors are sked to make donations to a central fund which is used to help all homeless people rather than putting money in a hat or cup on the street.

Evidence suggests that unfortunately some on-the-street donations to people who are begging helps fund drug and alcohol dependency, and can discourage them from accessing services that can help them turn their lives around.

The Big Change scheme recognises that people who are homeless often face practical barriers which need to be overcome for them to become active, independent members of their community and avoid sleeping rough.

It provides homeless people with practical items which support a longer term change.  This might include paying for a deposit for a home, a training course to help improve job prospects and clothes for a job interview.  Or it could involve furnishing a new flat, including purchasing crockery, pots, pans and bed linen, as well as funding travel costs to their new home.

In the scheme run by our neighbours in Rochdale, the fund is administered by Just Giving and Forever Manchester, and applications for grants are considered by a panel which includes a former rough sleeper and representatives from charities working with the homeless. 

I would therefore like to ask the Leader tonight if she will ask the Homelessness Forum to look into the practicalities of bringing Big Change to Oldham?”

 

Councillor Jean Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that homelessness levels were at a level never seen before and the Mayor of Greater Manchester had put the issue near the top of his agenda.  The problem was complex whereby some rough sleepers did not want to engage due to lifestyle reasons, but this did not mean they should not be supported.  Some people on the street did not have to spend the night on the street as they had homes to go to but chose not to go there.  The Leader was not aware of the Big Change but any programme able to help the local authority was worth a look.  The Homelessness Forum would be asked to look at the programme and if it enhanced what the authority already offered, a way would be found to do it.

 

Question from the Leader of the Conservative Group:

 

Councillor Sheldon asked about the staffing levels in the Planning Section.  He had received several complaints from residents that access to planning was difficult.  He asked for assurance that the vacant positions would be filled or filled shortly.  He also asked if Councillors could be informed of departures of staff and informed of new staff who were contacted frequently.

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council, responded that with regard to staffing in planning, a restructure was currently taking place which would address the vacancies.  The Leader requested details of those residents who were trying to contact Planning.  The Leader also advised that it was not feasible to inform of departures of staff, District Team officers should be able to advise.

 

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 S. Bashforth asked the following question:

 

          “The government has recently published a consultation paper ‘Planning for homes in the right places’ which contains a proposed standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need and sets out a number of proposals to reform the planning system to increase the supply of new homes and increase local authority capacity to manage growth. Can the Cabinet Member advise us of the implications for Oldham of these proposals and outline the Council’s response to this consultation?”

 

          Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that Oldham was required to produce 716 dwellings per year according to the paper.  Since this was roughly in line with Oldham’s requirement set out in the recent GMSF consultation (685 dwellings), Oldham Council would continue to seek sites which allowed the Council to meet it legislative requirements to meet housing needs.  The Council supported the GM view that the Council’s aspirations for inclusive growth across the city region were jeopardised by the divide between established home owners and those unable to find a place on the property ladder or access to a safe, secure affordable home to rent.  Concerns have been raised about the impact of tying payments from the New Homes Bonus to Housing Delivery Tests for individual local authorities since that approach would penalise local authorities who failed to deliver their agreed housing numbers by withholding bonus payments and would therefore discourage local authorities from increasing their own housing requirements in order to meet a housing need from elsewhere.  Furthermore it was pointed out that the major barrier to housing delivery in Greater Manchester and Oldham was rooted in relatively low values and fundamentally these were issues of financial viability and not actual planning policy.

 

2.       Councillor M. Bashforth asked the following question:

 

          “Over the last couple of months, the unemployment rate in Oldham has increased from being the third highest in Greater Manchester to be the highest. Could the relevant cabinet member explain the reasons behind this increase as I’ve not been informed of any major job losses across Oldham.”

 

          Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Employment and Skills responded that until August, Oldham had seen a sharp increase in the Employment Rate which had coincided with a reduction in employment.  However, there had been an increase in the claimant count over the last two months which presented a 21.8% increase between November 2016 and 2017.  The increase was because of the roll out of Universal Credit.  According to the House of Commons Research Briefing Paper, “Universal Credit and the claimant count in April 2017”, on average the claimant could would increase by 50% after six months of full service.  In Oldham, Full Service rolled out on 26^th April 2017.  Oldham should have seen an increase from 4,000 to 6,000 claimants by this point, but it currently stood at 5,995.  There were two main reasons:

1.       Universal Credit required a wider range of people to look for work than was the case.  For example, the partners of claimants were now required to seek work.  Previously, if someone was in employment and claiming tax credits, for example, but their partner was not in work (and not claiming Jobseeker’s allowance), there was no requirement for their partner to look for work.  This was no longer the case (subject to certain exceptions).

2.       New claimants who were awaiting or appealing Work Capability Assessments were required to look for work, e.g. citizens claiming Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) were initially subject to all work related requirements upon starting a new claim to Universal Credit, pending their assessment.  A backlog in assessments meant more citizens would be subjected to full conditionality for an extended period which could be very stressful if their health condition was limiting their ability in the first place.  A new baseline would need to be created which would expect a claimant count increase from 4,000 to 6,000.  Comparisons across GM would be able to be made until early 2019.  The Council was working with Local Housing Associations, Job Centre Plus, Welfare Rights team, Get Oldham Working team and Citizen’s Advice Bureau to support citizens to access the support needed.

 

3.       Councillor McLaren asked the following question:

 

          “In Oldham we have approximately 500 children and young people in care, and around 30 – 40 children are placed for adoption each year. Some of these children who were placed for adoption would for genuine reasons have been separated from other members of their siblings group. Children who are placed for adoption do receive counselling to help them deal with separation from their birth families. Many of the young people who remain in Local Authority care after their sibling have been adopted, would previously have had a caring role for their younger siblings and they will find the separation caused by adoption to be traumatic.  Could the relevant Cabinet Member please tell us what arrangements are in place to help children who remain in the care system when their siblings are adopted?”

 

Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding responded that the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children’s Act 2002 informed that wherever possible siblings should be placed together, unfortunately a placement together may not always be in the best interests for individual children due to neglectful experiences they may have experienced.  Oldham Social Workers completed sibling assessments which was a thorough and in depth assessment, included observations of the siblings and input from professionals and foster-carers prior to any decisions about long-term placements being made.  The assessment analysed the computability of each of the siblings needs, the level of parenting intensity needed in the sibling group and the nature of their attachment together.  Any recommendations to separate siblings and plan how this would be achieved was not taken lightly.  The recommendation was considered by the Agency Decision Maker at Final Care Planning Meetings who made the decision and considered what other support was needed.  Support included ongoing direct work with children by the Social Worker, life story work books and memory boxes for children being completed and consultation and sessions needed by Healthy Young Minds if necessary.  There were also different levels of contact including face to face contact and exchange of letters for siblings.  Oldham had a letterbox system in place which was managed by a Co-ordinator who acted as a third party between adopters and families, agreements could be made to maintain links for birth family and siblings through this system.  Children in care remained supported via their social worker, foster carer or residential support worker.

 

4.       Councillor Harkness asked the following question:

 

“A recent report released from Ofsted and the Quality Care Commission has condemned Oldham Council for failures in its provision for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and disabilities. Although the inspectors found some good practice and some motivated staff, it is clear from this report that there is a serious disconnect between what should be happening to meet the accepted standards of good practice and what is all-too-often happening on the ground and in our classrooms in Oldham.  I know how important it is to provide the right support to these youngsters. It is my belief that all our children or young people has just as much right to expect an excellent education as any other pupil.  The inspection team found that the revelation that Oldham is one of the worst-achieving areas nationally for educational achievement with these children and young people waiting too long for their needs to be identified. The poor achievement is exacerbated by high levels of fixed-term exclusions, persistent absences and failures of the school transport.

Mr. Mayor, this is simply unacceptable. We are leaving these children behind, abandoning them educationally. By not properly accessing the needs of these children, and the support that they need, at an early enough stage - sometimes not until they move from primary to secondary school - we are making it more likely that they will underperform at school. By excluding them and tolerating poor attendance, we are exacerbating this problem, and by having a school transport system that is not up to the challenge we make it harder to encourage parents to send their children to school in the first place.

The report called for a Written Statement of Action to be produced because of ‘significant areas of weakness in the local area’s practice’. Can the Cabinet Member please tell me tonight what action this Administration is proposing to address the failings highlighted in this report and when?”

 

Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years agreed that the report was not acceptable and the reports embarrassed and shamed the Council and the Health Sector in Oldham.  It was right that the Authority apologised for the failings in the report.  It could be seen as a weakness if the authority did not accept responsibility. It would take 18 months to rectify.  Since the meeting held on 6 October 2017, the following immediate actions had taken place:

·                 Establishment of an SEND Transformation Assurance Board and associated supporting mechanisms chaired by the Executive Director for Economy and Skills with senior representation form Oldham CCG to manage the immediate concerns;

·                 Revised Governance structure developed and agreed by the SEND Transformation Board, new SEND Board would be chaired by Councillor Chadderton;

·                 Interim management arrangements in place for the post of Head of Access and Inclusion followin the previous postholder leaving the Council’s employment;

·                 Clarification was being sought on all ‘illegal’ practice issues;

·                 Additional SEN EHC Plan writing capacity be brought in to address the shortfall in conversions of all remaining Statements of Education Needs into EHC Plans by the due date of 31 March 2018;

·                 Revised quality assurance processes put in place;

·                 Transport policy and decisions reviewed;

·                 Workload analysis undertaken on SEN Assessment Service;

·                 Additional capacity had been sourced by the CCG to support the implementation of the SEND reforms within the local NHS; and

·                 Quarterly Joint Monitoring and Support meetings held with DfE and NHS England officials 5 December 2017, at the meeting a report was provided which identified actions already taken since the Inspection against the 5 areas identified as the key themes for the WSOA.

The Authority had 100 days to respond with an action plan which was due at the beginning of March and this would be shared with all members.    Whilst the Council took a lot of responsibility as elected members who put themselves forward, however the Council was not the only body criticised in the report and it was interesting to see how partners hid behind the Council.  Exclusions were predominantly a school issue with five secondary schools accounted for 90%.  Once a child was excluded it became a Council issue.  Schools could not keep hiding behind the Council and it was hoped governors would ask challenging questions of schools about the impact of exclusions.  Assurances were given that everything was fixable, but it would take time and resources.  What could be done when the Government did not care about the most vulnerable and the authority had to save another £20 million in challenging times.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that the questions and responses given be noted.