(time limit 30 minutes – maximum of 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per response)
Minutes:
The Leader of the Main Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:
1. Question 1:
“The new Leader has talked about his plans to revise the Masterplan for the Oldham Town Centre. I am sure everyone in this chamber, myself included, will look forward to seeing the revised proposals. But first let me raise with the Leader tonight the issue of outstanding developments on two other town centre sites – that of Prince’s Gate and of Hotel Future. The Council’s website still proclaims Prince’s Gate is ‘one of the most ambitious redevelopments for our town centre since the 1980’s’. Former Leader Jim McMahon called it a ‘game-changer for the new Oldham’. Version 1 of this Royally-named scheme was due to open in 2017, but it collapsed when the flagship retailer Marks and Spencer pulled out despite a £9 million plus sweetener to fit out their new store and a promise of rent free occupancy for six months. On then to Version 2, minus M&S or may be just an M&S Food Hall. And now another Labour Council Leader, Councillor Jean Stretton, who was supposed to announce a new development partner for the site in the summer of 2017. Some 12 months on, not a shout nor a sign – so perhaps we are onto Version 3, now we have yet another Labour Council Leader? Prince’s Gate was supposed to deliver 700 jobs and £21 million a year to the local economy. Instead, it has so far cost the Council Tax payers of Oldham many millions in undisclosed abortive costs spent on marketing, planning and regeneration professionals as well as the costs of site assembly and clearance. And what do we have to show for it – a very, very costly car park. Truly then a gateway fit more for a Pauper than a Prince. Let us next turn to another site – the ‘will, won’t it go ahead’ hotel and conference centre on our doorstep, the development adjoining the Queen Elizabeth Hall, formerly known as Hotel Future. Poor Hotel Future has become like an unwanted old mongrel when it was once a Crufts pedigree. It was first a bespoke hotel training establishment offering courses in the hospitality industry, then it became a standard hotel from a standard hotel chain, then the plan was abandoned when the site, including the Queen Elizabeth Hall, was scheduled for demolition. And now the Leader is holding out the promise of refurbishing the QE Hall and perhaps putting the hotel back on site. In any case, the joke has clearly been again at the expense of Oldham Council Tax payers. It was revealed in a recent response to a Freedom of Information request that £418,670 has been spent on this project between 2011 and its abandonment in July 2017. Here then is my final question. Will the Leader please end the misery and tell us what development will be done, when it will be done and with whom it will be done on the Prince’s Gate and the Hotel Future sites?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council responded that the regeneration of the town centre and various sites in the town centre was the key focus as a reason for becoming Leader. The two sites and the difficulties in bringing these sites into development illustrated why it was imperative to get the development right and be confident that it would be delivered and also that it delivered the outcomes wanted for the people of Oldham. Prince’s Gate was a key gateway from some of the most affluent parts of the borough and anything less than the very best for that site would not be acceptable. Officers were working on schemes that could be built upon to get the type of gateway that Oldham deserved. With regard to Hotel Future, this was based on the nature of the market. There was demand for hotel provision in the town centre with Metrolink and the proximity to Saddleworth and the Etihad Stadium and it was important to provide for that demand. Hotel Future as first envisioned was highly unlikely. However, there would be hotel provision was part of the redevelopment plan because of that demand. The key to regeneration schemes so far have been Council led and have used funding to make things happen such as the cinema in the Old Town Hall. If it had been left to the market, nothing wold have happened. Things had changed as a result of the Council intervention with the money put in. The same approach would be used for hotel provision and key gateway scheme that was deliverable at Prince’s Gate.
2. Question 2:
“For my second question to the Leader tonight, I have to return to an issue I raised with his predecessor almost exactly one year ago today – namely the lack of availability of places for the children of our Borough in the schools of their choice. I am sorry to have to tell you colleagues that one year on, the situation is now worse not better. This year, in Oldham, 387 children missed out on a place at any of their preferred secondary schools. Ye that is right any of their preferred schools. That is one in nine Year 6 pupils or 10.9% to be exact. Of those who got a place at one of their preferred secondary schools, only 73% got their first preference. That compares badly with the national picture where 82% got a place at a first preference school. Overall we were bottom of the class – the worst performing local authority in Greater Manchester – when it came to offering school places. That’s almost 400 children (and their parents) failed by our system, not getting their first choice of secondary school, and not getting their second or third either. And I regret that this is even worse than last year when I could report to Council that 8.9% of pupils did not secure a place to start at any of their preferred schools in September 2017. That is 2% more than 12 months ago. As I said last year, and I make no apology for saying it again, this situation is scandalous – we can do better, much better and we must do better, for the sake of our children and their educational future. I look forward to the Council meeting when I can ask the Leader a positive question about education in our borough – I am sorry to say that with the current level of performance that I cannot see this as being at any point soon. I am pleased that the replacement Royton and Crompton School is now beginning to be built in my part of the world, and that we also have a promised expansion at Crompton House School, albeit with the caveat that we in Shaw and Crompton are anxious to ensure that these places are first directed at local pupils. However for colleagues in Saddleworth and the families they represent, the replacement school at the Diggle site still appears far off and uncertain, years behind schedule. I would therefore like to ask the Leader what has been done to make more secondary school places available from this September; what is being done to get the Saddleworth School project back on track; and what can be done to ensure that the Crompton House expansion means first and foremost more places for local children?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council agreed and education was the gateway out of poverty and a key priority for this Administration with a pledge to provide additional places and increase the proportion attending a good or outstanding school. In terms of school readiness, Oldham was the most improved in Greater Manchester. The proportion of schools which were good or outstanding was improving and confident that this would improve further after the next round of inspections. The provision of school places was hampered by the rules of Government which did not allow the Council schools. The Council had to find a partner to deliver a free school or get an academy chain to pen in Oldham. A free school bidding round had opened and the Council was already in discussions in order to create the additional places needed here in Oldham, particularly where pressures were. There was good news with regard to frees schools bidding to create places especially where there was pressure. With regard to Saddleworth School, the applicant was currently in discussions with the Environment Agency to overcome reasons for objections and would get that right and with regard to Crompton House the authority wanted to see Oldham children and do what could be done within the Council’s power.
Councillor Hudson, Leader of the Conservative Group, asked about the use of the plastic cups in the meeting rooms and when they would be discontinued. Councillor Fielding, the Leader of the Council confirmed in September 2018 the use of plastic cups would be discontinued.
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 Shuttleworth asked the following question:
“Despite a critical report from the National Audit Office and a legal defeat for the government over the treatment of people with disabilities, Pensions secretary Esther McVey has hailed Universal Credit as a “great British innovation,” that Universal Credit is “based on leading-edge technology and agile working practices,” and the UK is “leading the world in developing this kind of person-centred system. As Oldham was a pilot area for the introduction of Universal Credit, does Cllr Jabbar agree with these comments from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in so far as residents in our borough are concerned?”
Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Resources responded that Britain was a great nation, Universal Credit as a great innovation was a sad moment. There were massive delays on the initial payment, people had to go to the foodbank, children were going without food and some people had committed suicide because they were not able to meet their families’ needs. It could not be a great invention if it was putting people’s lives at risk. A great invention was the National Health Services which had saved millions of lives. The Secretary of State had apologised for her comments. There were thousands in receipt of Universal Credit in Oldham and experienced hardship. Residents should be referred Welfare Rights and Access to ensure that residents were claiming the right benefits and entitlements such as free school meals. Universal Credit has brought hardship and misery to many people.
2. Councillor Haque asked the following question:
“As we celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the NHS – created by Labour and opposed at every vote by the Tories in 1948 – could the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care comment on the implications for Oldham of the recent unfunded NHS budget increase announced by the Prime Minister and our plans for transforming services through health devolution in Greater Manchester?”
Councillor Chauhan, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care took the opportunity to speak about the 70th Anniversary of the National Health Service (NHS) and congratulated all the staff. The recent announcement by the Prime Minister was of a 3.4% n increase per year for the next five years. Whilst the certainty of a five year financial settlement, there were a number of unknowns which was not good enough. There was no surprise when nurses had to go to a foodbank. It was subject to the NJS meeting a number of tests (savings plans, eliminating deficits in provider Trusts, reducing variation, improving demand management, improving utilisation of capital funds), this was a national announcement and only covered the ‘NHS Mandate’. The integrated care system approach in Oldham brought together a range of stakeholders, commissioners and providers known as Oldham Cares. A whole system redesign was underway with the purpose of integrating health and social care services around five geographical clusters and with GP practices at the core. Oldham had significant challenges in health and social care and would hold ourselves accountable. A cross party advisory group would be set up to move forward.
3. Councillor Akhtar asked the following question:
“Parents from Werneth ward in particular from the Coppice Neighbourhood are at a disadvantage in gaining admission at a good secondary school due to admission policy changes to some schools and due to distance in other cases. There is speculation that a new secondary school will be developed in Oldham, could the cabinet member for Education and Culture reassure the residents of Coppice that they will not be at a disadvantage once again due to distance and the quality of education provided by the chosen sponsor.”
Councillor Jacques, Cabinet Member for Education and Culture responded that the local authority had a policy of only supporting applications for new schools from good or outstanding providers and this was reflected in the Council’s Free Schools Policy. Any new provision would be expected to offer a fair and transparent admission policy which caters for local needs. The local authority would satisfy itself that any new Free Schools offers an admissions policy which did not disadvantage local residents in the schools catchment area.
4. Councillor H. Gloster asked the following question:
“In recent months, we have debated in this Council, people trafficking and modern slavery, yet in May of this year, the media reported that Oldham has the highest number of incidents of young people in our care going 'missing' of any council in the UK. According to media reports, our looked after children, where the Council acts as the responsible corporate parent, went missing an average of 13 times each in a year. Now in any family situation, it is not uncommon for children to be unaccounted for a few hours, but fortunately in almost every instance the missing loved-one reappears none the worse for their absence, but this is surely on the face of it a frightening statistic. In these instances, there is the need for greater concern and greater vigilance as children’s charities say youngsters in care are extremely vulnerable, because they are more at risk of being exploited by criminal gangs and adults who groom children. Can I ask the Cabinet Member to comment on these recent statistics from the Office of National Statistics, most specifically whether at this moment in time we can as a Council account for all of the children who have gone ‘missing’? And can the Cabinet Member also please outline what this Council is doing to keep our looked-after children safe?”
Councillor Jacques, Cabinet Member for Education and Culture responded on behalf of Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services. Councillor Jacques shared the concern about looked after children who went missing and the additional risks they faced. As corporate parents the Council needed to ensure that it was doing everything it could to understand why young people went missing and to prevent it happening. The quoted figure of ‘13 times’ related to the average per looked after chid who wen tmissing and only related to 12% of Oldham’s looked after children i.e. 88% of looked after children did not go missing in the period. There was no cause for complacency since and since the time period in the published figures (2016/17). The Council had put in additional measures to address the issue and improve the response. Most recently the Council had designated a single point of responsibility – the Team Manager of the Phoenix Team for coordinating initial responses and ensuring cases were escalated where necessary. This approach also ensured a better link with the Council’s response to children missing education and other safeguarding concerns. Whenever a particular young person went missing, the Council worked closely with police colleagues to establish the likely whereabouts when knowns and ensure their safe return. Every child was offered an independent ‘return interview’ to establish the reason why they went missing and work with the young person to prevent a reoccurrence. The safety and wellbeing of looked after children was a prime priority for Councillor Chadderton in her Cabinet role and as Chair of the Corporate Parenting Panel and would hold Council officers to account on an ongoing basis to ensure the whole system worked to keep children safe wherever they were placed. This would include close monitoring of the number of young people who went missing and the frequency.
5. Councillor Ball asked the following question:
“Would the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods join me in congratulating everyone who helped Oldham Council achieve the Bronze award from the Sustainable Food Cities Network and highlight the achievements which this recognises?”
Councillor Shah, Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services congratulated everyone involved in this, including the Council, partners and local residents. Oldham had been awarded the Sustainable Food Cities Bronze award, the second borough in Greater Manchester and one of a handful of places nationally. The Awarding Panel said Oldham’s work had shown what could be achieved when creative and committed people work together to make healthy and sustainable food a defining characteristic of where they live. The award recognised the Council’s co-operative approach ‘from grassroots to boardroom’ to promote healthy, sustainable and local food at all levels. This includes a wide range of food activity linked with health, education, enterprise and growing. Initiatives championed by the award included the Oldham Food Network, the Get Oldham Growing Programme and the Green Dividend Fund. The Council would continue working together to grow a vibrant local food economy, increase fair access to food for residents, improve education and create healthy communities.
6. Councillor Leach asked the following question:
“Could the relevant Cabinet Member update on progress being made on the Lees Park Eco Centre and the plans for its use?”
Councillor Shah, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services responded that Lees Park Eco Centre was finished for the open day on 24th March 2018. As part of Oldham Council’s Get Oldham Growing Programme, the redundant bowling green and cabin at Lees Park had been transformed into an Eco Centre. The Eco Centre would be used for growing organic fruit and vegetables and would facilitate a range of courses on topics such as healthy eating. The centre would also educate residents on all aspects of sustainable living, the environment, wildlife, energy efficiency, renewable energy and water management. The Council wanted residents and community groups to make use of the facilities on offer which included vegetable plots, a classroom, poly tunnels, wildlife pond and composting area. This was a social enterprise scheme managed by Alan Price who was not a council employee, further information could be obtained by contacting him at alan.price@live.co.uk.
7. Councillor Garry asked the following question:
“Thanks to new building developments in Failsworth West, the ward will now benefit from a considerable amount of Section 106 monies. Is it feasible that Councillors have more say on where, and what it is spent on?”
Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing responded that as many members would be aware, planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were a mechanism which made development proposals acceptable in planning terms that would otherwise not be acceptable. The common uses of Section 106 were to: secure affordable housing and specify the type and timing of this housing; and to secure financial contributions to provide infrastructure. It was also possible to use Section 106 to say what can or can’t be developed on a specific piece of land or how it could be used, and it could require a sum or sums of money to be paid to the authority as a one-off or over a period of time. The legal tests for when a S106 agreement could be used were set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. Those tests were that the S106 request must be: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Provided a Councillor’s request met those tests, then it was reasonable that a Councillor could influence where and what a S106 contribution was spent on in consultation with the Council’s Planning Officers and the developer in question. There was potential to pick up this idea in the neighbourhood review that the new administration had ordered in order to empower ward members in more area, a review which was being overseen by Councillor Shah.
At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED that the questions and the responses provided be noted.