(15 minutes for public questions and 25 minutes for Councillor questions)
Minutes:
The Mayor advised 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 screens in the Council Chamber.
The following questions had been submitted:
1. Question received from Syed Maruf Ali via email and Facebook:
“Can you please raise this question at the full council meeting.
There seems to be an endemic problem of Fly-Tipping in Coppice/Werneth/Primrose Bank and I’m not sure if anyone have been prosecuted to date in Werneth Ward? It’s not difficult to gather evidence from the rubbish that is dumped to link it back to the culprits. I think it’s crucial that the Council is prepared to prosecute and then publicise it in the local media to deter others. Once someone is prosecuted in Werneth Ward, the word would soon spread. The policy of ‘Naming and Shaming’ has worked in other local authority areas. A short walk around Coppice and it is easily noticeable that a significant number of alleyways are affected by fly-tipping. It’s almost as if the culprits believe that it is normal to dump their rubbish on alleyways or that there is a perception that they can do it with impunity as the chances of being prosecuted is so small. I think the key is for the Council to send out a message to the Community of zero tolerance if they are serious about addressing this issue. To my knowledge there’s hasn’t been anyone prosecuted for Fly-Tipping from the Coppice/Werneth and Primrose area, however there has been prosecution in other wards. As with a lots of things, I know the Council works hard at resolving issues which the public aren’t always aware of. I think the new reporting system is a great idea, but this needs to be followed up with more awareness and communication with the Local Community. Maybe a leaflet can be distributed at local Mosques / Churches and Imams playing their part in informing residents etc will help .Can I ask what the value of the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) is or is it dependant on the individual case? Maybe it’s one for Cllrs to review and see if an increase would be more effective. I understand that there is a range of fines that Local Authorities can impose up to a max of £400. The current FPN fine is £80, or £50 if paid within the first two weeks. I’m sure all of us would agree that £50 fine isn’t much of a deterrent and needs to be increased significantly to be effective. Just a thought - before the budget cuts began, I’m sure the Council use to provide a free bulk collection service whereas now there is a charge of £17 for up to three items, so someone clearing a house, it would obviously cost them a lot more. I’m just wondering if there’s any mileage in considering bringing the free service back and the costs recouped from increased penalty charges. At the moment it must be costing the Council more in increased call out to fly tipping incidences, therefore if the costs of providing a free service can be offset with increased penalty charges and less call out for fly tipping, then I think a viable argument could be made. Thoughts ??”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that there had been a number of prosecutions in Werneth and the surrounding area. The enforcement team checked flytipping on site for evidence. There were many occasions where no evidence was found that enabled a fixed penalty notice to be issued. There was publicity via social media and via press release. Naming and shaming was possible for convicted offenders but this was not possible where a fixed penalty was issued as this alone was not proof of guilt. It was agreed that the dumping of waste was an eyesore and totally unacceptable. Anyone who had information was asked to report it. There was a lot of work and awareness raising with the local community and the ideas in terms of working with local mosques and churches was appreciated. The penalty charge would be reviewed. In respect of the removing the charge for bulky waste, this would not cover the costs and other considerations to be taken into account. Dumped waste was not bulky in nature and just general waste and when clearing a house, this was part of the cost of the landlord operating a business and would be regarded as trade waste and it was not appropriate to subsidise that service.
2. Question received from Chris Ackroyd via email:
“It has been reported in the media that Shaw and Crompton Parish Councillor Shaun Duffy has allegedly taken charity money from the Mayor of Oldham. Would Oldham Council confirm that they are aware of such an allegation and what action is Oldham Council taking?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage so as not to potentially jeopardise any police investigation.
3. Question received from Ms. Donna Gould via email:
“As this is Councillor Warren Bates’s last meeting would the Council Leader answer a couple of questions please? Apparently Cllr Bates put on his election material that if elected he would donate half of his allowance to charity could I ask if he has done this in his time in office? In addition he also put forward a motion in which he called on councillors to have their allowances reduced by 50% the motion was lost but Cllr Bates being a man of principle and the first to attack council officers for their pay did he voluntarily reduce his by 50%? if he did not ‘In my opinion’ I believe this is wrong.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that during his term of office Councillor Bates had received his allowance but that Council was not privy to that information and invited Councillor Bates to respond. Councillor Bates explained that under data protection it was private money, if he personally contributed to charities, that was no one’s business.
4. Question received from Hazel Gloster via email:
“Can I ask the relevant Cabinet Member to place pressure upon TfGM to ensure that Metrolink platforms and car parks are adequately gritted during periods of sub zero temperatures. As a witness to a lady suffering an horrific fall on the ramp at Shaw and Crompton Metrolink tram stop due to sheet ice on the ramp, compounded by a car park that would have served as a makeshift skating rink, it was evident that no gritting had taken place despite TFGM’s assurances that gritting does take place.”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the TfGM’s Metrolink had been contacted regarding this issue. Full details were provided on their approach for winter preparation which included the Metrolink operator, KAM, reviewed the forecast twice daily, ice breaker trams deployed overnight and teams deployed through the evening to grit and clear the snow from all customer areas of the network. It was possible, however, for grit to be washed away and become less effective if it rained after it has been laid. Logs were kept of all gritting activities each day and KAM would like to investigate the incident at Shaw and Crompton. The lady involved has been contacted to see if she was willing to provide further details to TfGM.
5. Question received from Louis Hamblett via email:
“With the latest report stating that London's
and the South East housing market is in decline and that the shift
is now on the North particularly the North West could the relevant
cabinet member tell me what the administration is doing to ensure
that any new builds are affordable meaning that they are in line
with current prices and that areas will not be gentrified to
out price residents in the area as is the current trend with
London, Birmingham and Manchester."
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that Affordable Housing was defined by Central Government as ‘social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to specified eligible households whose needs were not met by the market’. Intermediate housing offered people on low wages a chance to get their foot on the housing ladder through models such as Shared Ownership or Rent to Buy. A balance needed to be struck in order for affordable housing provision to be sought from as many developments as possible without adversely affecting the viability of the development. It was therefore considered that the target of affordable housing provision should provide an opportunity for the specific circumstances of a development proposal, which included location, impact on regeneration, objectives and site specific issues to be considered on a site by site basis. In Oldham, the affordable housing target was 7.5% of the total development sales value. Partners were currently working on site on a number of significant schemes at the moment delivering over 200 new affordable homes. This included Great Places building 42 new affordable homes as part of a larger development at Rose Mill. First Choice Homes Oldham were on site delivering 156 new affordable homes at sites in Royton, Sholver, Derker and Bardsley.
6. Question received from Stephen Kenyon via email:
“Is there any point in making a complaint about Oldham council or it's councillors as, from my experience, it will just be ignored and/or swept under the carpet?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that complaints against members were taken very seriously and were considered in accordance with the process approved by Council and the Standards Framework in the Localism Act. It was not accurate to say that complaints were swept under the carpet as there were many examples where investigations following complaints had been undertaken. The Council took all complaints seriously and each complaint was considered according to the regulations that applied, for example, corporate complaints were considered under the process set out within the Local Government Act 1974. The Council received and considered around 1250 formal complaints each year. Of all the complaints received, approximately 45% were upheld. Where complaints were upheld, the council sought to apply service improvements to help ensure that the same problems did not rise again for others. For this reason principally, the council saw complaints from residents as a key way to listen and change on the basis of what people told us about the services provided. The Council’s Complaints team could be contacted at 0161 770 8122 or at customer.feedback@oldham.gov.uk. If the complainant was not happy with the decision there was recourse to the Local Government Ombudsman.
7. Question received from Steve Kessell via Twitter:
“Are you intending on refurbishing the thoroughly disgusting Oldham Market public toilets, or are you quite satisfied with the present conditions?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise, responded that the toilets were starting to show their age. There was a commitment to make Tommyfield Market an attractive and welcoming place for shoppers and that work was shortly to get underway to improve toilet provision and this should be started at the start of summer. It had been announced that Tommyfield Market would be redeveloped over the next few years at outlined in the Town Centre Master Plan. Modern toilets would be installed in the temporary as well as the new Market Hall.
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 Chadderton asked the following question:
“I welcome the £6.2 million being invested by Oldham Council to improve the roads across the borough including, for example, resurfacing St Phillips Drive in Royton South. However, the recent severe weather has worsened the condition of many roads and the LGA estimates that £12 billion is needed across the UK to deal with repairs. Can the Cabinet Member for Transport tell me what further steps are being taken to improve roads such as Perth Street in Royton South?”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the £6.2m investment programme was designed to make a substantial impact to improving the roads across the Borough, but ideally significantly more investment would be required in the future for all roads in the Borough to be improved to that similar overall standard. This meant that the programme of schemes actually being carried out within the £6.2m investment programme had gone through a detailed prioritisation process which included a number of factors from a much longer identified condition list of all roads in the Borough. This overall condition list was constantly updated according to seasonally changing road condition and priorities were revised accordingly, helping to inform future programmes of works according to possible available funding levels. Members would receive information as to which roads would be included in their wards.
2. Councillor Toor asked the following question:
“I am concerned about the practices of some of the developers who are building homes in Oldham: roads, footways, and open spaces can be left in an incomplete or substandard condition for many years after the development has been occupied. Examples include Borough Mill Triangle Development and adoption of open space on Neild Street, which is just being transferred to the Council as Countryside Homes have been unable to deliver the site to a required standard for over 3 years. I would like the Council to have robust procedures including binding deadlines in place with regards to highways, streetlights, and green spaces when: negotiations with developers take place; planning applications are made, and section 38 agreements are reached. Should deadlines be missed or work fails to reach the required standard, the developer should be penalised financially. Please can you advise us on what action we will take to rectify the ongoing issues and what we will do to ensure that these delays do not happen in the future?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the issues referred to existed as part of the S.38 process where there would be financial security that the Council could call upon if and where required. The issues experienced previously such as incomplete or substandard works had been due to one of many factors for example, the developer had not signed their S38 agreement but had decided to carry out all or parts of the work at risk; the developer had carried out works which contradicted approved Highway drawings; the works had been completed to a substandard condition; the developer had utilised land to construct the highway that was not within their ownership and/or other associated factors which had not been adequately considered by the developer. The Council could not prevent a developer from working on their own land at risk nor is the Council obligated to adopt a new highway by default. The Council could request that any unsatisfactory works were rectified prior to being considered for adoption and this was generally what caused delay in completion. There were many reasons why developers completed works at risk, predominantly though due to the need to meet target completion and handover dates for dwellings. Care needed to be taken to ensure that handover dates applied to developers were not pursued such that one didn’t take precedent over the highways work completion. Minor changes to the S38 procedure had been identified to encourage developers to follow the procedure correctly. These changes would be presented to the Council in due course. Public Open Space (PoS) was not specifically related to Highway Adoption. PoS was adopted and maintained separately with the exception of any footpaths.
3. Councillor McLaren asked the following question:
“It has been pleasing to see that FCHO are carrying out a scheme of work to improve their properties in the Taylor Street area of Chadderton Central Ward. It would be much appreciated if the Cabinet member responsible for housing could advise on the nature and extent of the work being undertaken, how long the programme of work will take to complete and whether any thought was given to the possibility of allowing owner occupiers to buy into the scheme so that they too could benefit from the purchasing power of a large organisation, for items such as gates and fences.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the works being undertaken in the area were a FCHO environmental scheme and included front and rear fencing, gates and flagging. The work was undertaken on a need basis so existing components if they were in good condition were not necessarily replaced, therefore the exact schedule of works would vary on a property to property basis. Private residents could avail themselves of the products and services used on the scheme, however, to avoid any conflict with FCHO’s charity status this needed to be done through a direct arrangement with the contractor. Residents had been contacted prior to the commencement of the works. The contract in Central Chadderton was scheduled to be completed in the next few days, however, the works would be moving to North Chadderton where works would continue until December and the offer to private residents in Central Chadderton would remain open until that time.
4. Councillor Gloster asked the following question:
“Residents of Shaw and Crompton joining the tram often experience incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour being committed by a small irresponsible minority who think nothing of terrorising and intimidating their fellow passengers. Now with three brutal attacks on individuals at or near Metrolink tram stops across Oldham in recent days - an attempted murder by three youths of a man at Freehold and hammer attacks at the Oldham King Street and Derker stations - this situation has gone from bad to worse. Many of my constituents, and those of my ward colleagues in Crompton, are growing increasing fearful about the advisability of travelling by tram when it appears to be such a frightening prospect. I am sure that many will now be inclined to take to their cars, go by bus or simply not contemplate the journey. Can the Leader or responsible Cabinet Member please outline the steps that are now being taken by the relevant authorities to apprehend these offenders and what is going to be done long-term to make travelling by Metrolink tram safe again?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the Council was working closely with Greater Manchester Police in addressing the issues related to the attacks on and around the Metrolink system. People had been arrested and charged. In the short term, the Metrolink Travel Safe Unit and local neighbourhood policing teams were targeting additional staff on the Metrolink line through Oldham, particularly around places which were hotspots for crime and anti-social behaviour. This was being supported by the Council’s Community Safety Offcers and detached youth team. Further targeted operations were also planned. The Leader of the Council had written to the Chief Constables and the Mayor of Greater Manchester asking for an urgent meeting to ask what could be done with the unacceptable situation.
5. Councillor Roberts asked the following question:
“At the March meeting of Royton’s Community Forum, a resident raised the issue of how policing priorities were set in Royton. Could the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods please tell us what influence both we as a council as well as residents have over how the GM Mayor sets policing priorities?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, responded that the Greater Manchester Mayor had published his first plan, Standing Together, for the police, criminal justice services, community safety and the people who live in Greater Manchester. This had put the emphasis on the individual citizen. There had been a full and thorough consultation process that had incorporated the views of community and voluntary groups, supports services and local people. There had also been extensive engagement with people who used the services and also those who provided them including all ten authorities across Greater Manchester. All responses received during the consultation had helped to shape the three priorities set out in the plan.
6. Councillor Briggs asked the following question:
“Under the Community Support Officers Designated Powers, as defined in Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2004. Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) have Standard National Powers. According to the act there are twenty categories of power that PCSOs have. Could the cabinet member responsible please provide me with data as to how many times in the last 12 months have the PCSOs who operate within the Failsworth and Hollinwood District Executive Area exercised these powers in each of the twenty categories.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) had 20 standard powers which included, for example, issuing certain fixed penalty notices and requiring individuals to supply their name and address if they believed they had committed an offence. Greater Manchester Police were not able to provide a breakdown of how many times in the 12 months the powers had been used in the Failsworth and Hollinwood area. Officers were seeking additional clarification from Greater Manchester Police about the extent to which the various powers were used, even if the question could not be answered exactly as requested. Information would be provided when it was available.
7. Councillor Mushtaq asked the following question:
“Queens Road has a number of care homes caring for a significant number of elderly people. During times of adverse weather including the recent Beast from the East the road, like many others becomes very difficult to negotiate. I received several calls informing me that ambulances that had been called out to a care home were stuck. It took fantastic local residents who pushed the ambulance up the road to enable the paramedics to do their job. I'd like to thank the residents and ask if a separate cold weather strategy should be in place for Queens Rd given the number of care homes which frequently call out an ambulance.”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that Oldham Council gritted its highway network on a priority basis. In events of severe snowfall it was essential that the Council worked continuously to keep the priority routes opened to ensure that as far as reasonably practical, traffic could continue to move throughout the Borough. The Council took a strategic approach by gritting in routes which ensured that the journey destinations remained accessible. By widening the approach to cover care homes (of which there were many similar locations to Queens Road) would divert resources away from the priority routes which would increase the risk of those routes becoming blocked due to snow or by traffic unable to reach its destination. There were procedures in place to respond to gritting requests in emergency situations when requested by the emergency services. Councillor F. Hussain expressed his thanks to the local residents. Councillor F. Hussain also expressed his appreciation to the efforts of the gritting team in keeping the roads open during in horrendous conditions.
8. Councillor McCann asked the following question:
“The recent high winds caused several trees to fall, sometimes causing disruption but fortunately no loss of life of injury. Could the Cabinet Member outline the procedure that members of the public and indeed councillors should follow if they wish to report 'dangerous' trees on their land, or on Council land, or other private land? In the case of the latter, and I appreciate that sometimes ownership of this land is unknown, what enforcement action will the Council take to remove any unstable/diseased trees?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that during the recent bad weather close to 1000 trees had been lost across the town. All trees that needed to be reported should be emailed to environmentalservices@oldham.gov.uk 24 hours a day or during officers by contacting 0161 770 4067. A report would be taken and an inspection would follow depending on the priority determined by officers. When the weather conditions were reported to be an issue out of hours the Council endeavoured to place a team on standby. First Response were informed and would take details which would be passed to the team on call. The trees would be managed on a priority basis dealing with those that were a threat to life, causing or had caused damage to buildings or blocking the highway. If the trees were not in Council ownership, the immediate issue would be dealt with first than cost would be recovered at the earliest opportunity through enforcement/rechargeable action.
9. Councillor G. Alexander asked the following question:
“Further to the development which is occurring on Haven and Havenside Close - I have been informed that the local farmer has damaged the culverts and altered the waterways. This has caused flooding issues to properties on Haven Lane, Havenside Close, Haugh Hill Road, and Turf Pitt Lane. Can I be assured that there will be no building works taking place on Haven Lane till this has been rectified? Can the Council ensure that the builders take flooding into consideration when building the new properties?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that common law required landowners used their land in such a way that it did not increase the risk of flooding to a neighbouring property. If this was found to be the case, either the Environment Agency, United Utilities or a neighbour would have the option or right to consider legal (civil) action. Related to future development of the site, the Haven Lane scheme was granted on appeal on 4th December 2017 subject to a number of conditions. One of the conditions (Condition 9) required further details of the disposal of surface and foul water from the site prior to commencement of the development. The duly approved scheme needed to be implemented before any of the dwellings were first occupied. To date the condition had not been discharged and no material start at the site had occurred to the Council’s knowledge.
10. Councillor Salamat asked the following question:
“Can the Cabinet Member responsible update us on the situation with the LINK Centre and outline arrangements have been made to support user groups while the centre is being refurbished?”
Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding responded that an information briefing was held on 6th March 2018 which informed people who used the centre of the planned closure which would enable a programme of works to take place on the building. During the planned closure, which would take place from late March to September 2018, groups were informed that meeting rooms would be unavailable. Unfortunately the meeting had ben originally planned to take place on 28th February 2018 which would have provided approximately four weeks notice of the closure, but due to the bad weather the briefing had to be rearranged for the following week. Sixty-one people attended the briefing who represented 16 organisations or groups, including Carers Drop-In, Gamblers Anonymous, Oldham Arts Group, Age UK, U3A, Deaf Club, Parkinsons Society, CLEO and Alcoholics Anonymous. At the briefing the groups were informed about the support available which included: staff working with group leads to identify alternative venues for their meeting; an information drop-in event which included attendance from a range of organisations who could provide support to access alternative meeting rooms on locality meeting facilities with accessible places; and the intention to provide regular updates on the works on our web page which had now been updated to reflect the timescales and planned works. In addition, one-to-one meetings to support individual groups were offered and these had been held with group leads. A full guide of available meeting rooms across the borough was provided to groups. Staff had already visited a number of locations to identify appropriate alternative locations depending on the groups’ needs. Staff then worked with group leads to arrange booking theses venues or meeting with the organisations who managed the venues. One of the biggest barriers had been the need for groups, in some locations, to pay for meeting rooms. However, this had always been a requirement at the Link Centre, although not fully endorsed due to historical informal arrangements. Throughout the development of new offer at the centre, it had been communicated to the groups of the need to pay for meeting rooms going forward. This had been clearly articulated over 12 months with the first briefing taking place to inform groups of changes on 12 and 14 December 2016. Through early engagement and highlighting the need to pay for meeting rooms, it was hoped to minimise the impact on groups and enable them to plan for future funding arrangements. Where funding could have been an issue, work has taken place with individual groups to identify venues which were free and in some cases, identify funding to support their transition to an alternative venue. Groups would continue to be supported where required during the period of works.
11. Councillor Phythian asked the following question:
“Residents in Royley, Royton North have complained to me about the poor service provided by the 412 bus. It runs in the morning every one and a half hours until 2pm and then not until 7.45 in the evening. If you miss the lunchtime bus back from Oldham you have to wait several hours to get home and is of no use to school children returning home. The bus operators say this is for commercial reasons but surely putting on a bus service that only operates half the day means it is unlikely to be well used. Please can the Cabinet Member responsible take up this issue and press for a sensible bus service that meets the needs of residents?”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, responded that bus services were currently run on a commercial basis and if the operator chose not to run a service, there was a limit on what could be done. The only option at present was for TfGM to fund gaps in the network left by commercial operators. The Bus Services Act 2017 had provided the Mayor with new powers to reform bus services in Greater Manchester with the potential to allow greater local control over routes, frequencies, timetables, fares and quality standards. These powers were currently being considered, but in the meantime, the funding available for TfGM to provide a subsidised bus service was under great pressure and had been reduced. It was TfGM that funded all journeys on the 412 service. The contract for the daytime journeys was renewed in January 2018 and the service maintained during the part of the day when it was most used. TfGM had subsequently looked at moving resources from lightly used evening services to fill the daytime gap but this idea had not been well received as it just moved the problem. A commitment had been secured from TfGM to revisit the proposal again to see if they could provide a sustainable and affordable option that covered a wider span of operation.
12. Councillor Sheldon referred to a recent visit from Councillor F. Hussain to discuss transport and traffic issues in Saddleworth where they had witnessed the aftermath of an accident. Councillor Sheldon asked if there were any plans to reduce the speed limit at the Manchester Road Junction near the Royal George Pub from 40 to 30 mph?
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the visit to Saddleworth had been informative. The location of the junction was near Tameside and would not be a simple response for the speed to be reduced. Unity would be asked to look at the request and an update would be provided to Councillor Sheldon.
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.