Agenda item

Questions to Leader and Cabinet

(time limit 30 minutes)

Minutes:

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

 

Question 1:  OAP Tram Charge

 

“I want to bring to your attention the rather unpleasant and underhand news that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority are planning to tax the elderly residents of this Borough before they can even board a tram.  Pensioners who currently enjoy free travel on public transport across Greater Manchester are being forced to pay an annual fee if they want to travel from A to B on Metrolink.  The new Charge will be £10, whereas before it was free.  This new tax will be live as early as January 2020.  I hope we plan to communicate this to our elderly residents in the Borough?  We must also think about if this new strategy should be means tested and not rolled out to everyone regardless of their own personal circumstances.  The national law states free travel for the over sixty fives on buses, but from next year any pensioner wanting to claim free travel on the Greater Manchester Train and Metrolink Tram network will be forced to pay an annual administration charge.  This £10 charge is simply a hidden Labour stealth tax on our elderly.  OAPs now must pay for TV licences and struggle with heating and other bills in winter.  Information freely available on the NHS website says hundreds of thousands of elderly people are cut off from society and suffer from loneliness.  This applies especially to the over 75s as over one million of these older people live alone.  This begs the sad question, why did the Labour party at the last full council meeting in July say they want to maintain free TV licences for the over 65s but now plan to charge pensioners for claiming their rightly entitled free travel?  Please explain this to me because I know a lot of people will be just as puzzled as I am.”

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council, responded that it was dishonest to claim the charge was a stealth tax.  It was correctly referred to later in the question as the £10 administration charge.  The charge was for the additional benefit of travelling for free on Metrolink trams and trains within the Greater Manchester conurbation.  Free bus travel remained free and despite the way it had been spun in the media, free bus travel remained free and there was no charge for the pass to gain that travel.  The administration charge was the cost of loading on the additional benefits for free travel on the Metrolink and heavy rail network in Greater Manchester.  The £10 administration charge brought this charge into line with the administration charges the holders of other passes throughout the Greater Manchester conurbation also had to pay such as the new ‘Our Pass’ which provided free bus travel and additional benefits in terms of a leisure and cultural offer as designed by the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham.  ‘Our Pass’ carried a £10 administration charge.  The WASPI Pass which had also been brought in by the Greater Manchester Mayor to close the injustice between free travel and the pension age changes seen by the WASPI women had a £10 administration charge.  The ‘IGO’ passes which allowed young children who go to school on the bus to pay concessionary fares also carried a £10 administration charge.  The introduction of the £10 administration charge for the additional Metrolink and Heavy Rail benefit had brought that in line with the charges paid by people who accessed similar passes.  The money raised from the administration charges was ringfenced to be reinvested to transport projects throughout Greater Manchester.  The charges of £10 would raise in excess of £1m that would go towards things like bus franchising, extensions to Metrolink and improving the quality of the heavy rail services in Greater Manchester when the devolved powers called for in controlling heavy rail services were in the region rather than be controlled by the Department for Transport in London.

 

Question 2:  Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Proposals

 

“It is widely known, that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), will build on large chunks of Oldham Borough’s untouched and finite Greenbelt and green spaces including our valuable Protected Open Space.  This is a persisting issue in the Borough and there have been mass demonstrations and organised protests against these proposals.  This wide-ranging plan will decide the future of the Borough for generations.  I have yet to hear which Oldham Council meeting will discuss the proposals detailed in the framework and for the Council to discuss and agree the terms laid out in the strategy.  Given the importance of the subject, it would be wise, in the Liberal Democrats opinion, that Oldham Borough have a special one item agenda Council meeting about the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.  Can the Leader confirm when the much promised GMSF proposal will see the light of day?  Can the Leader confirm that Oldham Council will hold a special one item agenda Council meeting to discuss, agree and comment on published GMSF proposals?  And that there will be consultation on when that meeting might be held and a significantly long notice of when it will be held?  If there is no special meeting planned, which ordinary meeting of Council, will this important matter be shoe horned into?”

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council, shared the frustration on the amount of time that had dragged on to give the people in Oldham a clear answer on where it was proposed to release land for development for the housing to be built as determined by the Office for National Statistics figures which the Government required the Council to use.  The events in Westminster meant there was little certainty coming on what population figures the Council were expected to use in determining the number of houses, when the numbers would be confirmed and that left the Council in a kind of limbo.  From conversations at Greater Manchester level, it had been understood that the Government would like the amount of greenbelt reduced for development, but the Government were also insistent that the Council used the 2014 ONS population projects on which it was impossible to deliver on the housing needed without releasing greenbelt for development.  Until there was a clear answer from Government the Council was not in a position to confirm when GMSF would come forward and a special meeting of Council scheduled.  The Leader was in agreement with Councillor Sykes there would need to be a special meeting to agree proposals, allow sufficient time for discussion and be open and transparent on the issue.  When the Leader was in a position to confirm the method by which GMSF would come to Council, the usual consultation method would take place when Constituted meetings were to be changed or additional meetings called.  The Leader looked forward to the conversation with Councillor Sykes and hoped the proposals would come forward as soon as possible to clear the issues on the minds of elected members and the members of the public.

 

Councillor Hudson, Leader of the Conservative Group, asked a question related to local democracy, asked which District Executive had underspent and asked if local councillors could not be trusted in being accountable in spending ratepayers’ money in their wards.  Councillor Hudson seen this as another nail in local democracy in the borough.

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council, responded that there had been underspends in all areas and challenged the assertion on trust.  The allowances for members had been increased which members had to spend in their wards.

 

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 Ahmad asked the following question:

 

           Waterhead Academy recently won the National Inclusive School Accord Award: will the cabinet member for Education and Skills join me in congratulating Waterhead Academy on this amazing achievement?

 

            Councillor Mushtaq, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, joined in congratulating Waterhead Academy on the award.  Councillor Mushtaq, as a former governor was fully aware of the background and context to which the school was striving on community cohesion and the belief that it could change.  The award showed the successful effort.

 

2.         Councillor Chauhan asked the following question:

 

           Posts have been shared on social media and allegations subsequently repeated in letters to local newspapers that undue influence was exerted on Members of the Planning Committee to direct them to vote in a certain way at a recent Planning Committee meeting. Could the Leader advise Council on the veracity of these claims?”

 

            Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the essence of some of the claims that had been made were symptomatic of society today.  Different views could be held on the same information which had been received.  Planning Committee was a quasi-judicial function with the Council.  Members were required to attend the Committee with an open mind. The Leader had faith that all members of all parties who attended the Planning Committee did this. The Leader had been a member of the Planning Committee in previous years and voted for decisions that were unpopular.  The Leader had faith that elected members attended Planning Committee with an open mind and no decisions made prior to the evidence being given whether it was given by elected members, members of the public or by officers in the presentation, in writing or verbally at the meetings.

 

3.         Councillor Garry asked the following question:

 

           Could the Cabinet Member for Finance comment on the Spending Review announced by the Chancellor? Will the money granted to local government meet Oldham’ needs, particularly in adult and children’s services?

 

            Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services responded that when the Chancellor had presented the Spending Round, it contained some good news but only covered one financial year.  Whilst there were a range of funding announcements, it was very pleasing to hear the following confirmed:

·         Firstly, there would be no reduction in Government departmental day-to-day budgets which gave an assurance that general Council funding would continue at this year’s levels.  There had been concern that there would be a further fall in grant.

·         Secondly, £2.5 bn of existing Social Care Grants would continue with a further £1bn of grant promised.  There had been concern that Social Care Grants would cease and the continuation of the funding was very welcome.

·         Thirdly, there would also be additional funding for schools – a national total of £2.6bn in 2020/21 including £700m for High Needs which was most welcome given the challenges being faced in Oldham Schools.

Whilst the individual Authority allocations were yet to be announced, this was much better than had been anticipated.  The announcement did not go far enough to reverse the effects of austerity.  Since 2009/10 the Council had been forced to make budget reductions of £216m which had had a massive impact on Oldham.  New research by the TUC and the New Economics Foundation think-tank had found that Government cuts would leave local authorities with a £25bn black hole, leading to more cuts to services and increasing the chance of more councils being forced to declare bankruptcy.  In Summary, the new was pleasing.  However, it was pleasing news, however, for more needed to be done to restore funding levels and allow meaningful financial planning.

 

4.         Councillor Williamson asked about complaints received by Crompton ward councillors about the Crompton House School expansion build.  The complaints were mainly about the hours of construction, vehicular movements which were in clear breach of planning condition no. 27 which stated ‘during construction and demolition no vehicle movements from construction vehicles to and form and within the site shall take place except between 7.30 am and 6.00 pm each day Monday to Saturday and at no times on Sundays, public or bank holidays’.  Despite warnings, the contractor had ignored this condition four times just on a Sunday.  There were more breaches on weekdays as well. Councillor Williamson asked if Oldham Council would reassure residents who had photographs and videos to evidence the breaches that the Council would use the full force of planning enforcement officers and prosecute the contractors for breaches in planning conditions and that there would be no further future breaches.  What was the point of a planning condition if the Council did not do anything about it and let the contractor do what they wanted with no consequences.  It was also to be noted that the contractor had been commissioned by Oldham Council’s Unity Partnership to carry out this particular project.  If the Council could not get it’s house in order, what chance was there.  In addition, the contractor had a lot to answer for in failing to deliver the school build on time which had resulted in Years 10 and 1 not returning back to school on time.  Perhaps the Cabinet Member would like to comment on that?

 

Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that planning enforcement officers would take action but evidence would be needed in order to do so.  Councillor Roberts urged Councillor Williamson and local residents to submit their evidence to the Interim Head of Planning so the information could be sent to the planning enforcement officers for action to be taken.  There was no guarantee given on the outcomes as the evidence would need to be examined to determine whether it was sufficient to support a prosecution.  In terms of Unity Partnership and the delivery of the project, it was understood that the delivery was a week late and the school was now open with the new build completed.  The provision of good facilities for local children was something to be welcomed.

 

5.         Councillor Davis asked the following question:

 

           I have been asked on quite a few occasions recently by members of the public about the availability of affordable 4 bed homes in the Borough, it appears when the more affordable 4 bed homes and larger are up for sale they are being sold to developers who are turning them in to HMOs,  I understand there is a shortage of larger homes in Oldham and would it be possible to stop them being turned in to HMOs so families who require this type of property have a chance to remain in the Borough and have no need to move away?”

 

            Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing responded that developers were competing in an open market and would be able to outbid residents in buying what was available.  Currently, conversion to a 3 to 6 bed HMO was permitted development and did not need planning permission.  If there was clear evidence to demonstrate that converting large houses to HMOs was causing serious problems then it was possible to issue an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights to convert a dwelling to an HMO.  This was not straightforward as it removed a legal right but there were examples where this had been achieved.  The Council would need to show there were high concentrations of HMOs being formed that were affecting local neighbourhoods.  It was most likely that this could be demonstrated in a focused area.  Evidence of serious problems would be needed, for example changes to the character of an area or in terms of parking, rubbish and neighbour nuisance.  Officers had begun to collate the number of HMOs but more would be needed to achieve a Direction.  If members felt it would be helpful to discuss evidence gathering further, the Strategic Planning Team could help.  The issues about housing need and the data that had been collated to support the housing strategy came into play at the planning application stage.  Should the Council be successful in removing permitted development rights, permission would be needed to convert a home into an HMO which would be determined on a case by case basis.

 

6.         Councillor Hewitt asked the following question:

 

           On the 2nd of September I phoned my doctor for an appointment and was given a date of 3rd of October a wait of just over a month, what provision will be put in place when Birks Quarry, Stonebreaks and Knowls Valley developments over 700 houses are built for access to doctors and other services?”

 

            Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that planning permission had been granted for 265 new homes on Knowls Lane and consultation had taken place on 213 homes at Springhead Quarry, whilst Birks Quarry had 36 homes allocated in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).  The Council had a well-established process which ensured that there were sufficient school places available as populations grew and shifted – St. Agnes’ school would be gifted land as part of the planning agreement on Knowls Lane.  The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) did not anticipate the new developments would have a destabilising effect on any one GP practice.  For example, there were 13 practices within two miles of the Knowls Valley Site.  More generally, the CCG was taking steps to ensure good access to GPs for both routine and urgent appointments.  An additional 520 appointments were available every week at evenings and weekends which can be booked on 0161 934 2827.  There were currently 7,000 households in housing need in the borough who were already using GPs, schools and other services.  Evidence from recent developments such as Thorp Road in Royton and Broadway Green, was that most people who moved into these new homes were already living in the borough either locally or further afield.  For example, shared ownership offered people the opportunity to own their own home moving from the private rented sector or affordable rent offered young people the chance to leave the family home.  It would be wrong to assume that 514 homes in total meant 514 extra families in needing public services.

 

7.         Councillor Shuttleworth asked the following question:

 

           The opportunity for residents of this Borough to directly ask questions of the Administration at full council is a positive one which was welcomed by elected members when first introduced some years ago by the then Leader of the Council, Jim McMahon. Many residents have seized this opportunity either in person or via email and have done so in a positive way.  Unfortunately, very much a minority have seen such an open and transparent opportunity to create a disturbance once they have asked their question, and on one recent occasion a member of the public harangued the Leader from the public area when he went to the water fountain.  Councillors are rightly subject to a Code of Conduct and while I don't know, nor should I know, how many such complaints are submitted, this is the right afforded to residents if they believe they have been wronged. Having said all that, may I ask the Leader that taking this into account, does he agree with me that residents should also conduct themselves, either by question or from the public area, in a manner which they rightly expect from elected members, be this face-to-face or in this Chamber?”

 

            Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that he had been a Councillor in Failsworth for eight years which had had some challenging times.  The Leader highlighted the openness and transparency of Council and the ease by which people could ask questions at full Council.  The Leader welcomed people asking questions which were sometimes difficult to answer and challenging.  If, as some alleged, outside the Chamber elected members were somehow not transparent and dishonest, why would elected members invite people in, to stand at the lectern and ask questions directly to the members.  The Leader welcomed the opportunities for residents to engage directly with councillors in Council and other forums such a residents meetings and ward surgeries, wherever it would be to find councillors in an accessible locations.  Councillors did have to adhere to the Code of Conduct.  It was to be expected that when Council was opened up to allow people to come and engage directly, that good behaviour was reciprocated.  The Leader invited more questions to Council as not all the time allotted to public question time was used but it also had to be accepted that there were process and procedures in the Chamber and asked that people respect these and the answer that was given at the time of asking.

 

8.         Councillor Al-Hamdani asked a question related to the lack of a five-year housing supply plan which had caused a problem when making objections on planning applications and decisions being biased in favour of developments given that the Council had not plan in place.  When was the Council going to get a five-year housing supply plan and why did the Council not have one already?

 

            Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that the Council did not have a five year supply plan which meant there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development in terms of the applications that were put in front of the Planning Committee.  As the Council had failed the Housing Delivery Test, this reinforced that position.  The Council’s Housing Land Supply was published annually and would be updated later this year.  Details of the current position which included the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was available on the Council’s website.  One of the issues which the Greater Manchester Strategic Framework (GMSF) was  attempting to address was the issue of land supply and the longer term planning which a 20 year plan allowed the Council to do and helped to address some of the issues around land supply by looking at what was needed over a 20 year period and what land would be coming forward further down the line.  The Council could use that as a defence having to agree and apply the presumptions to sustainable development.  Part of the reason for being involved in GMSF process was to try to protect the Council’s position in the longer term, but left aside the controversy about some the sites.  The Council was not in a position to say when there would be a five year plan as the land in the borough was not in the Council’s control and were reliant on sites coming forward by land owners and developers coming forward with viable proposals.  The Council wold be assisted if the Government made changes to its policies particularly, the policy on helping make brownfield land suitable and economic to build on.  It would also help if the Government changed the way it managed the many billions of pounds given to Homes England in terms of subsidies and what the Council could be entitled to apply for to meet the housing needs in the Borough.  The Council was in the position where to do the best that it could on an annual basis was to scan the borough, talk to people, put into land supply everting that could be found, but equally more land could not be found that didn’t exist.  The best the Council could do was to plan and campaign to get resources needed in order to develop more of the brownfield land that everyone would like to see used more sustainably and to the benefit of local people.

 

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.