Agenda item

Five public questions were received.

Question1 – Warren Bates

“At the last DE a resident Mrs Barbara Collins said she last attended a DE in spring 2018. And has never returned since.?

She said also in her very long “public question” that she witnessed a certain Facebook page that encouraged residents to attend DE meetings and disrupt them. It seems to have taken Mrs Collins over twelve months to respond according to her very serious long public question.

She also said in part of her long public question. That she had noticed the same” face book page group” obviously her being a member. Continually to encourage members to attend and disrupt DE meetings that was the reason for her question and she has never attended a DE since.

In response through the chair and other Labour Cllrs speaking on behalf of our “openness and transparency” council who welcomed her serious concerns, in the interest of local democracy. “The council will now review district workings” and accepted her concerns with no evidence whatsoever , the council wanted to be able to discuss and debate local issues meaningfully without disruption.

My Questions are.

(1) Because of the controversy and response from attendees on the night and since, who witnessed and heard this residents concerns, and because it was a “highly sensitive” public question which was read out and “in my opinion “ was incorrect and erroneous”

(2) Can we have a update on the intended and promised revue of district workings tonight please.”

The Chair informed Mr Bates that number (1) would not be responded to as it was a statement, not a question. 

Cllr P Jacques responded to number (2) that the review was ongoing and had not yet concluded.

Question 2 – Warren Bates

“My “local priorities “ are the following policing ,education, n h s  housing, transport just to name a few.

Also we were promised our own M R I scanner, in our health centre many years ago it hasn’t arrived yet.

Local Labour Cllr Elaine Garry with the full support of her labour colleagues has promised that £40,000 will be spent on the upkeep of the local cemetery.

Allowed to deteriorate under their watch in my opinion, and states publicly further investment will be forthcoming.

I would be grateful for the Cllr to explain where the money will come from and how much”.

Cllr P Jacques replied that, in relation to the scanner, this was for the NHS to provide and the Council had no control over this. With regards to the cemetery, local councillors had lobbied to move this up the list of priorities and the work had been undertaken. All the work had been completed and £110,000 had been spent in total.

Question 3 – Sonja Jones

“What plans are in place to address the increasing demand on community services in Failsworth including schools, GP and dental needs?

We have an increasingly elderly population in Failsworth.

We already have an increase in the local population of house conversions-to flats (in a conservation area), and conversion and building of apartments on Ridgefield St. And a planned 240/260 house development on green belt land at Woodhouses”.

Cllr Briggs replied that, in terms of education provision, GMSF document Policy GM-E 4 said that significant enhancements in education, skills and knowledge would be promoted throughout Greater Manchester, including by:-

·         Enabling the delivery of new and improved facilities for all ages, such as early years, schools, further education and higher education, and adult training;

·         Ensuring the delivery of sufficient school places to respond to the demands from new housing, such as through:

o   Working with education providers to forecast likely changes in the demand for school places; and

o   Where appropriate, requiring housing developments to make a financial contribution to the provision of additional school places and/or set aside land for a new school, proportionate to the additional demand that they would generate.

In terms of healthcare provision, the GMSF Policy GM-E 5 said that improvements in health facilities would be supported, responding to the changing needs and demands of residents, including through:

·         Requiring, where appropriate, the provision of new or improved health facilities as part of new develpments that would significantly increase demand;

·         Enabling the continuous enhancement and successful operation of Greater Manchester’s hospitals; and

·         Facilitating greater integration of health and social care, and the provision of integrated wellness hubs, including the co-location of health, community and wellness services.

The policy requirements for the strategic allocations proposed in Oldham were that, were they to go forward, developments would be required to;

a)    Provide for additional school places to meet the increasing demand that will be placed on existing primary and secondary school provision within the area, either through an expansion of existing facilities or through the provision of new facilities in liaison with the local education authority;

b)    Provide for appropriate health and community facilities to meet the increase demand that will be placed on existing provision.  

Councillors were working with colleagues in Education and Health as part of the preparation of the GMSF and they were advising on the education and healthcare needs in relation to the proposed strategic allocations. Due to the GMSF being in the early stages, there were currently no details of where potential new facilities would be located and this would be considered as part of the next stage.

Question 4 – Denise Wynne

“My question is after reporting a crime to the police why do we not get contacted by the pco's as advised by the police at the time ..and absolutely no feed back from anywhere. I personally feel what is the point?”

The Chair responded that this matter had been referred to the police. Further details were needed and the District Co-Ordinator would speak with the questioner after the meeting.  

Question 5 – Barry Aspden

“As I am sure you are all aware of the huge problem of irresponsible dog owners who will not clear up after their dog(s) have fouled on the pavement. This is one of the main problems residents have within Failsworth and other areas in and around Oldham. Posters/signs have not had the desired effect on these individuals.

Please consider organising a competition to identify the street/road/ avenue/close/playing field/park that is free of dog fouling for a week. The benefits of such competition are 2 fold. Firstly, it will focus the minds of irresponsible dog owners and that they are being watched more closely. Secondly, it will show to you the extent of the problem we are facing. In my view identifying a street/road/ avenue/close/playing field/park will be close to impossible.”

The Chair replied that the problem was recognised but it was not felt that a competition was the best way to address this as it may prove divisive in the community. The Chair had brought leaflets for people to take from the meeting and consideration as to how best to address the issue as continuing.