Agenda item

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

1.       Question 1:  Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

          “My first question tonight relates to a future decision which will be one of the most momentous in its impact on many of our Borough’s residents over the next two plus decades.  Namely the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) – the adoption of a 20-year housing and industrial land use development plan for Greater Manchester.  The revised proposals have been some time coming, but I understand that they will now be available for so called public consultation in October.  I also understand that a decision has recently been made by the ten Labour Council leaders and the Mayor of Greater Manchester who have decided that the ultimate decision to adopt, or not to adopt the final plans, will rest solely with them.  There will be no requirement to bring the plan to a full meeting of each of the ten Councils for debate and a full vote on formal adoption by all councillors.  This is a complete reversal of democracy.  Members will recall that many of our residents were outraged when the initial plans to build thousands of new homes on Green Belt land in Shaw, Crompton, Saddleworth, Royton and Chadderton were first unveiled.  Liberal Democrat colleagues, I and members from the seats opposite, joined them in opposing the proposals when responding to the consultation or attending demonstrations in Tandle Hill Country Park and in Albert Square.  Public sentiment is still the same across Greater Manchester – no to building new houses on our Green Belt and yes to local councillors as the people’s representatives ultimately making the decision where new homes are built.  Ward members are elected to lead, but also to represent the constituents and the communities we serve.  How can we do this if we are denied the final vote on the plan?  If we get this wrong, it will represent a disaster for our communities and for our Green Belt.  Yet the ten Labour Council Leaders and GM Mayor are saying ‘leave it to us, we know what is best for you’.  It is simply not right that such an important decision can be taken by so few people.  It is certainly not what I and many others envisaged but perhaps it is a sign of things to come with so called devolution to Greater Manchester.  I would like to ask the Leader tonight, whether despite this backroom deal, he will still be doing the honourable thing by bringing the final plan back to a meeting of the full Council for debate and adoption. 

          Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council, refuted the suggestion of a back room deal.  A previous motion had been raised whether to withdraw from GMSF in its entirety and this motion was lost.  GMSF was a strategic plan for the allocation of land for homes and employment uses for the whole of Greater Manchester and it was appropriate for the decision to be made at the right level of governance and argued that that level would be Greater Manchester.  There would be a meaningful consultation when the revised plans were published in October when members and residents would have the opportunity to respond.

2.       Question 2:  Call for Conductors on Metrolink Trams

          “My second question raises another issue that concerns a great many residents in our Borough, their safety when they use Metrolink.  Regrettably, we have seen many disturbing instances of crime and anti-social behaviour on the Rochdale – Oldham line, several very violent over recent months and unfortunately the line has the highest number of incidents across the Network.  I welcome the recent actions of Metrolink staff, Police, and our Council’s Youth Engagement Officers in tackling this blight, and the news that thirteen offenders have been arrested during the first two weeks of this operation is good news.  The operation may be called Infinity, but the resources are not and it will at some point come to an end.  Some time ago Oldham Liberal Democrats revealed shocking figures that one in eight Metrolink passengers are fare-dodgers, or to put it another way, 12% of all journeys are not paid for.  There are 40 million tram journeys a year so fare-dodging is estimated to cost Metrolink about £9 million in lost revenue. Oldham Liberal Democrats have also flatly refused Labour plans (supported by the Conservatives) to put up fares for honest Metrolink passengers by an inflation busting 19% by 2020 when one in eight passengers travel free.  Rather than hammering the honest passenger, transport bosses need to focus on tackling fare evasion.  12% non-payment is a disgrace.  Conductors on trams would help tackle this issue and should pay for its self, whilst making the honest travelling public feel safe.  It would also drive the fair dodgers and those causing anti-social behaviour off the trams.  Other tram services in the UK have on-board staff on every service, such as the Sheffield Super Tram and on the Wolverhampton – Birmingham line.  Not only does a conductor provide passengers with reassurance that there is always someone at hand should they need assistance in an emergency, but that person can also give passengers advice about services, stops and fares and help them to board and alight.  For my second question tonight I would like to ask the Leader if he would be willing to join me in calling upon Metrolink operators to introduce conductors on a trial basis on the Rochdale – Oldham line?  We can improve safety, tackle fare evasion and increase revenue for Metrolink – a triple win – and I do not know why we are not doing it already.”

          Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council, shared the concerns about safety and the number of incidents at stations and on board the trams.  If the suggestion of conductors had been easy they would have been introduced.  The Leaders and a Member of Parliament had met with the Mayor and representatives of Greater Manchester Police and lobbied for the operation of travel safe officers, PCSOs and ticket inspectors which had been successful.  The Leader was a regular user of the Metrolink and on every journey when he had used the tram, there had been some sort of enforcement officers on either the outbound or return leg.  The inspection regime was yielding dividends and had improved safety on the trams with action being taken on those who behaved anti-socially.

Councillor Hudson, Leader of the Conservative Group referred to the extremely challenging weather conditions last winter which had caused damage across the roads and this winter could be the same and could outstrip the work done on the roads this summer.  Would the Leader consider a new funding stream for road improvement, i.e. a pothole fund with contributions from developers to maintain the road network?

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council responded that one of the Administration’s pledges did make reference to the investment of additional money into highways capital programme and give people a greater say.  This was already in progress and there would be an announcement at a future Cabinet meeting.

The Mayor reminded the meeting that the 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 Davis asked the following question:

          “GCSE Results.  Could the relevant Cabinet member tell me if the well publicised changes to the GCSES have had any impact on School performance across the borough?”

          Councillor Jacques, Cabinet Member for Education and Culture responded that the publicised changes had resulted in a small reduction in the percentage of English and Maths 4+ passes from 59.2% to 57.2% and 5+ passes from 37% to 36.6%.  This was the first year of the new examinations at GCSE and it was reported that headteachers were already carefully reviewing the data with their staff to better understand the challenges of the new examination system and identify improvements for the new session.

2.       Councillor Ali asked the following question:

          “ASB on trams.  I welcome the recent crackdown on ASB on the trams – what are the ongoing plans to make sure that the situation is kept under control for the future?”

          Councillor Ur-Rehman, Cabinet Member for Policing and Community Safety responded that TfGM had developed a 3-year plan to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour on the Metrolink Network in partnership with the Metrolink operator KAM.  TfGM’s TravelSafe Unit was leading on a range of initiatives aimed at tackling ASB both on trams and at tram stops. The problem was being tackled through a partnership approach with KAM, Oldham Council, TfGM and Greater Manchester Police.  The partnership was aiming to resolve issues and improve safety and security in the long term.  Incidents and activity were being closely monitored and appropriate action being taken.  The TravelSafe Unit continued to work closely with neighbourhood police teams and local authority community safety leads to understand the issues, agree joint outcomes and tap into the tools and powers available to them and also sought to tackle the underlying causes e.g. vulnerability and youth engagement as part of the ongoing management strategy.  The partnership was actively increasing the amount of preventative community engagement undertaken through the development of a community and schools engagement programme, e.g. Crucial Crew, School and College visits and youth council visits.  KAM is working towards the Safer Tram stop accreditation on Metrolink which aimed to reduce the opportunities for criminal and anti-social behaviour from taking place.  The award was administered by Secured by Design and overseen by the Association of Chief Police Officers.  In addition the Department for Transport (DfT) was currently reviewing the national security regulation of all light rail operators and KAM and TfGM working closely to ensure all regulatory requirements for safety and security were met.

3.       Councillor Shuttleworth asked the following question:

          “Bright Tribe Academy Trust – Werneth Primary School.  Anyone who may have watched the Panorama programme in relation to the Bright Tribe Academy Trust, no stranger of course to Oldham via the now closed UTC, could not be other than alarmed at the allegations of what can best be described as mismanagement of how government funding was spent, or allegedly not, at a number of schools. Bright Tribe Academy Trust have withdrawn from all schools in the north of England with the exception of Werneth Primary School.  Since it became an academy in February 2014 Werneth Primary School has gone through three permanent principals and three interim principals and in July of this year, two members were appointed to the Board of Trustees: Angela Barry and Nikki King, who have both previously been parachuted into trusts which subsequently closed.  Taking into consideration the problems that we have encountered with the closure of the Tory flagship policy of free schools in the borough, would the Cabinet Member for education state if there has been any contact from concerned parents or former Trusts members at the school.”

          Councillor Jacques, Cabinet Member for Education and Culture responded that no contact had been received from the trustees or parents so far.  The Council was aware of Bright Tribe relinquishing their involvement with a number of their academies.  The Council had approached Werneth Primary School before the summer breaker were told that Mike Dwan was not longer involved with the Trust; the DfE had replaced the previous board with new members; no public announcements were made; and Trustees would meet in due course to determine a way forward.  The situation would be monitored and concerns would be raised at the next meeting with the Regional Schools Commissioner.

4.       Councillor Murphy asked the following question:

          “Repairing Dangerous Roads and Potholes.  Guidance issued to all local authorities by the Department of Transport in October 2016 required Councils to ‘investigate’ any potholes or instances of road surface erosion of at least 40mm depth, but did not necessarily require them to repair it. Oldham Council follows this guidance. This creates a problem where the top surface of a road is less than 40mm in the first instance. This often leads to the road surface becoming worn down to the cobbles and dangerous to road users, but it will never become eligible for repair under our current procedures. Would the Cabinet Member responsible agree to take a fresh look at the threshold at which we repair roads and give a commitment that this Council will undertake to repair any pothole or road surface, whatever the level of damage, which poses a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists as quickly as possible?”

          Councillor Shah, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods responded that the thresholds for highway safety repairs had recently been reviewed at a Greater Manchester level.  40mm was considered across the ten authorities to be an appropriate measurement for road surface deterioration, when taking into account the safety of highway users and had been adopted as the GM threshold.  Road surface deterioration that did not meet the minimum criteria was not considered to represent a safety hazard.  By working to an agreed repair criteria, highway users could expect a consistent highway service across the borough boundaries and each authority could ensure that resources were targeted where they were needed most to ensure safety.  The Council / Unity Highways was in the process of commencing a new more detailed Annual Engineering Inspection (AEI)/complete network condition survey.  This would be used to inform future priority lists and provide the Council with a 3 to 5 year programme for capital investment.  The findings would be evaluated and a report prepared for presentation to the CIPB before the end of the year with suggestions for the utilisation of any underspend across the first £6m Highways Investment Programme and also proposals for how capital highways budgets / investment could be spent in future years.  Areas of defective carriageway surfacing that did not meet the threshold for safety repairs would get identified on the AEI and would be considered for inclusion on a future programme based on condition, value for money and available budgets.

5.       Councillor M. Bashforth asked the following question:

          “Memo of Understanding with Police.  At the last council meeting  Councillor Steve Bashforth and I brought a motion to council asking (amongst other things) that a Memorandum of Understanding between the council and police be negotiated to help elected have confidence their enquiries on behalf of residents will be dealt with and responded to in a timely manner. Can the cabinet member responsible update us on progress?”

          Councillor Ur-Rehman, Cabinet Member for Policing and Community Safety responded it had been requested that a memorandum of understanding be agreed with the police in order to ensure that elected members could be confident that their enquiries on behalf of residents were being dealt with and responded to in a timely manner.  Councillor Ur-Rehman had met with senior officers from the Oldham Division of Greater Manchester Police to discuss this.  It was important to recognise the wider context that, as a result of reductions in central government funding, Greater Manchester Police had lost more than 2000 police officers.  This was also at a time when there were a growing range of issues for the police to address.  These included both emerging threats and issues which were previously hidden from view, such as child sexual abuse, online grooming, internet-based fraud and modern-day slavery.  The police were committed to being a strong partner in working with the Council to tackle and prevent crime and keep citizens safe.  This fitted within the target operating model of Greater Manchester Police, which had five priorities.  Two which were of particular relevance were place based working, with the police working closely alongside other agencies including councillors and council officers and prioritising and providing support to those most at risk of harm in order to ensure the best use of resources.  The key local resource in working with councillors was the neighbourhood policing teams.  They were the first point of contact for councillors in raising concerns and in working together address local issues.  Senior officers in the division would provide support where there were more complex issues that needed to be unblocked.  A short guide was being prepared to assist councillors in addressing the concerns of residents in their wards and would be available shortly.  This included guidance on where different types of concerns should be taken.  This also included contact details for the members of the neighbourhood policing teams in each district, as well as key contacts within the council related to issues such as safeguarding and tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.  Difficulties faced by the 101 service in provide an acceptable standard of service to the public had been highlighted.  This was a priority within the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Plan and the Cabinet Member continued to push for progress on this through the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Steering Group on which he represented Oldham.  The Cabinet Member also thanked the police for the contribution to highlighting tram issues and to the operation which had been successful.

6.       Councillor Leach asked the following question:

          “Rail Review.  Could the cabinet member responsible for transport please let the Council know if there might be any positive developments for rail users in Oldham from the government's forthcoming rail review?”

          Councillor Shah, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services responded that the Government had not issued any further details about a potential review of rail services and was not in a position to comment on what this meant for Oldham until details were announced.  However, the Council worked closely with rail colleagues at TfGM who took a proactive approach and would use their influence to get the best outcome for rail in Greater Manchester, including for Oldham, when responding to any rail industry consultations or reviews.

7.       Councillor Haque asked the following question:

          “Funding of “no deal” Brexit. Could the Leader tell us what guidance has the Council received from the Government about contingency planning for a ’no deal’ Brexit and what funding is being made available to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of EU funding from the North West?”

          Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that there had been no advice received on what to do in the event of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit which was concerning.  The Leader made reference to the lack of confidence on a deal being agreed by the end of March; the stockpiling of ingredients and emergency preparations.  Brexit was already harming local government.  The Leader referred to the crisis in social care funding for adults and children and no financial settlement after 2020.  The Leader also remarked how the areas in England and Wales, including the North West had benefited from EU funding.

8.       Councillor Harkness asked the following question:

          “Getting Oldham’s Share of Airport Jobs.  Earlier this year, plans were announced to ambitiously expand the employment and entrepreneurial opportunities provided by the newly designated Airport City Manchester. However there appears to be an assumption that these will be automatically targeted at residents in the immediate locality, rather than offered by applicants from all ten of the Greater Manchester local authorities. Surely this is wrong?  Oldham Council as one of the local authority shareholder of the Manchester International Airport receives a dividend proportionate to its shareholding and so in turn it is only right that Oldham residents should be able to access a fair proportion of these jobs.  Can the Cabinet Member for Employment and Skills therefore please tell Council how this Administration intends to ensure that Oldham people will be able to able to access their fair share of the jobs and business opportunities resulting from these plans?”

          Councillor Mushtaq, Cabinet Member for Employment and Skills responded that the airport was a key transport infrastructure hub which supported the city region and was a major employer with approximately 19 – 24,000 jobs.  The jobs were not just within the immediate vicinity but also through third party suppliers from across the city region and beyond.  The Council had developed a good working relationship with Manchester Airport Group.  The Airport Group attend the annual jobs fair with travel champions from TfGM.  GMCA had committed to promoting jobs and enterprise opportunities to all citizens in Greater Manchester not just those in the locality.  The Amazon Fulfilment Centre roles had been advertised through Get Oldham Working and the Skills for Employment programme.  An investment in the tram network has reduced travel times.  The Airport provided a dividend for its shareholders which included Oldham Council which supported improvements in the road networks and the Get Oldham Working traineeship programme.  Employment sites presented in the Local Plan would be a key part of Oldham’s economic future.  It should be argued that the next big proposal should be in the Northeast sector.

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.