Agenda and minutes

A Civic Appreciation Award was conferred on Mr. Steve Hill MBE in recognition of his significant voluntary contribution and dedication to the borough and community of Oldham.

Councillors Fielding, Sykes and Harrison gave congratulatory speeches about Mr Hill.

Mr. Hill made a short acceptance speech to the Council.

It was noted that the presentation of the Award would take place in the Mayor’s Parlour at a later date.

Consultation had been undertaken with Group Leaders to vary the order of the agenda due to the changes to the regulations. Councillor Fielding MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED an amendment to Council Procedure 15.5 and proposed that timings would include the extensions, therefore any members wishing to speak would be granted 4 minutes and 30 seconds

and those members with a right of reply 6 minutes and 30 seconds. On being put to the vote, this was AGREED.

Apologies were received from Councillor Alexander, Councillor Hudson, Councillor Salamat and Councillor Surjan.

Councillor Hobin asked that it be noted that he was present throughout the meeting on 4^th March but had been unable to participate due to connection issues.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Council meetings held on 16^th December 2020 and 4^th March 2021 be approved as a correct record.

Due to the current pandemic and the virtual meeting, a roll call of elected members was taken, and at the same time, in accordance with the Code of Conduct, elected members declared the following interests:

Councillor Ahmad declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of a union.

Councillor Akhtar declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of UNITE.

Councillor Ali declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of the GMB union.

Councillor Alyas declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 by virtue of his membership of a union.

Councillor Ball declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of her membership of UNITE.

Councillor M Bashforth declared a personal and pecuniary interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3.

Councillor S Bashforth declared a personal and pecuniary interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and a personal interest at Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of the GMB union.

Councillor Briggs declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of a union.

Councillor Brownridge declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 by virtue of her membership of a union.

Councillor Chadderton declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 by virtue of her membership of a union.

Councillor Chauhan declared a personal interest at Item 9d by virtue of his appointment to the MioCare Board and a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of a union.

Councillor Cosgrove declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of her membership of UNITE.

Councillor Curley declared a personal interest at Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of being a member of education staff.

Councillor Davis declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of UNITE.

Councillor Dean declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of GMB.

Councillor Fielding declared a personal and pecuniary interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3.

Councillor Garry declared a pecuniary interest at Item 9d by virtue of her husband’s employment with Greater Manchester Police.

Councillor C Gloster declared a personal interest at Item 9d by virtue of his receipt of an occupational pension from Greater Manchester Police.

Councillor H Gloster declared a personal interest at Item 9d by virtue of her husband’s receipt of an occupational pension from Greater Manchester Pension Fund.

Councillor Goodwin declared a personal interest at Item 10 Motion 2 and Item 11 Motion 3 by virtue of his membership of UNITE.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Council was informed that several Members had indicated they would be retiring at the end of the current Municipal Year.

Councillors Sheldon, McLaren, Sykes, Byrne and Hobin paid tribute to the work of Councillor Hudson.

Councillors Brownridge, Sykes and Sheldon paid tribute to the work of Councillor Haque.

Councillors Dean and C Gloster paid tribute to the work of Councillor Price.

Councillors Leach, Al-Hamdani and Sheldon paid tribute to the work of Councillor Hewitt.

(time limit 20 minutes)

The Mayor advised that a petition had been received for noting by Council:

People and Place

Reference 2020-14: Petition requesting Don't Build on Greenbelt Land received 2 April 2019 with 467 signatures

RESOLVED that the petition received since the last meeting of the Council be noted.

(time limit 20 minutes)

During 2020 we were able to consult over 8,600 young people for the UK Youth Parliament’s consultation ‘Make Your Mark’, although lower than previous years due to the pandemic restrictions it represents a 34% turnout (the highest in the UK). 

The top issue that came out from this ballot, with more than a quarter of all votes, was Free University: Investing in young people by providing free university; This will help more young people reach their full potential without suffering financial hardship.

With young people now reported leaving university with upwards of £45,000 worth of debt, it is no surprise that young people must seriously consider this cost before even applying to university. For some young people in Oldham, fees plus the cost of living and other financial requirements will implicate their decision to apply and continue into higher education regardless of their passion or ability. This in turn may restrict or hinder their prospects to gain a full-time job in equal measure of pay and opportunity compared to that of their peers who attend university.

At the time of running Make Your Mark over 3,000 young people aged 18-24 were unemployed, a youth unemployment rate of 15.2%, the highest rate across Greater Manchester and higher than the national rate of 9.2%.  With unemployment rising due to the pandemic it is likely that youth unemployment will rise further and stay high for longer than for adult unemployment.  We know that the reality is that not all young people may want to attend university even if it is free.  However, if we can give every opportunity to those who wish to be socially mobile then it will free up space within the labour market.

Oldham Council is committed to providing quality educational opportunities for all it’s young people. 

We ask that the Chief Executive writes to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and the Minister of State for Universities, Michelle Donelan to show the Council’s support of it’s young people and support of scrapping University Fees.

The Youth Council PROPOSED the following MOTION:

During 2020 we were able to consult over 8,600 young people for the UK Youth Parliament’s consultation ‘Make Your Mark’, although lower than previous years due to the pandemic restrictions it represents a 34% turnout (the highest in the UK). The top issue that came out from this ballot, with more than a quarter of all votes, was Free University: Investing in young people by providing free university; This will help more young people reach their full potential without suffering financial hardship. With young people now reported leaving university with upwards of £45,000 worth of debt, it is no surprise that young people must seriously consider this cost before even applying to university. For some young people in Oldham, fees plus the cost of living

and other financial requirements will implicate their decision to apply and continue into higher education regardless of their passion or ability. This in turn may restrict or hinder their prospects to gain a full-time job in equal measure of pay and opportunity compared to that of their peers who attend university.

At the time of running Make Your Mark over 3,000 young people aged 18-24 were unemployed, a youth unemployment rate of 15.2%, the highest rate across Greater Manchester and higher than the national rate of 9.2%. With unemployment rising due to the pandemic it is likely that youth unemployment will rise further and stay high for longer than for adult unemployment. We know that the reality is that not all young people may want to attend university even if it is free. However, if we can give every opportunity to those who wish to be socially mobile then it will free up space within the labour market.

Oldham Council is committed to providing quality educational opportunities for all it’s young people.

We ask that the Chief Executive writes to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and the Minister of State for Universities, Michelle Donelan to show the Council’s support of it’s young people and support of scrapping University Fees.

Councillor Mushtaq MOVED and Councillor H Gloster SECONDED the RESOLUTION as outlined in the Motion presented by the Youth Council.

Councillors Moores, Hulme, Leach, Mushtaq and H Gloster spoke in support of the Youth Council Motion.

On being put to the vote, the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

(time limit 15 Minutes)

The Mayor advised that the next item on the agenda was Public Question Time.  Questions had been received from members of the public and would be taken in the order in which they had been received. Council agreed to suspend Council Procedure Rule 10.4 so that the questions would be shared on the screen rather than be read out.

The following questions were submitted:

1.         Question received from Anita Lowe:

Why did O.M.B.C/Legal Services feel the need take it upon themselves to personally attempt an injunction on a citizen of Oldham - Mrs Deborah Barrett-Cole on 11th December 2020 at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

Please could you explain the reasons for serving this injunction?

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, responded that it was considered appropriate to issue legal proceedings in this matter to prevent harassment and disturbance of individuals affected by the conduct.

2.         Question received from Lewis Quigg:

I would like to ask the Council and relevant cabinet member:

·         That Oldham is open to all businesses and employers whether foreign or domestic?

·         That the Council condemns attacks on local businesses that involve criminal damage and in particular on the Elbit factory in Clarksfield?

·         Does the Council agree that attacks on businesses sends the wrong message to employers, and in particular the defence industry which employs many skilled workers in the United Kingdom and in a Borough such as Oldham where we should be looking to increase employment?

·         Will the Council ask Greater Manchester Police to provide all necessary support to local businesses to make sure they are safe and secure employment spaces for their workers?

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, responded that the Council welcomed investment from all businesses into the Borough and strived to be a place where businesses and enterprise could thrive.  As could be seen within the Oldham Plan, the Council promoted an inclusive economy and would continue to stimulate inward investment.

The Council condemned any form of criminality and would encourage businesses and employers to report such behaviours to Greater Manchester Police at the earliest opportunity. All businesses and individuals in Oldham should feel safe and secure and the Council worked in partnership with Greater Manchester Police and other enforcement authorities to ensure offenders were brought to justice.

Should any employer require any further information on business security, they could contact Greater Manchester Police for support and advice on 101 or via www.gmp.police.uk

3.         Question from Mick Harwood:

I would like to ask a question on behalf of Friends of Tandle Hill Country Park.

Visitors to Tandle Hill Country Park are becoming increasingly worried about an increasing amount of litter, not just there but also in other local parks.

I feel that an effort to encourage people to take their rubbish home would help

Would the council be willing and supportive of a “take your rubbish home” campaign?

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Culture responded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

(time limit 30 minutes)

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

Question 1:

For my first question to the Leader tonight, I would like to return to the redevelopment of the Spindles and Town Square shopping centres.

At the November 2020 Council meeting, just after the purchase had been completed, I asked the Leader whether this represented a ‘risky purchase’ and pointed up the ‘significant sums of money’ that will be involved in repurposing and refurbishing these two shopping centres.

I am sure that many people will have been shocked to recently hear that the ‘significant sum of money’ this Administration has earmarked to repurpose and refurbish these shopping centres amounts to £68 million over five years.

Not for nothing did the Liberal Democrats brand it ‘Spendles’.

This truly is a whopping sum of money.

We all want to see a vibrant, viable town centre in the heart of our borough – and for our part Liberal Democrat Councillors also want to see vibrant and well-used district centres in Failsworth, Chadderton, Royton, Shaw, Uppermill, and Lees as well – but at what eventual cost?

My real fear is that we shall see the same cost and time overruns and abortive costs on this project that have dogged this Administration’s previous so-called ambitious town centre projects:

·         the abandoned Hotel Futures plan;

·         the abandoned Coliseum plans – plural;

·         the bankrupted My House;

·         the much delayed and costly ‘game changer’ at Princes Gate;

·         the over-budget town centre digital hub;

·         and lastly the town centre flagship, the Old Town Hall project, delivered at four times the original cost.

So can the Leader please tell me tonight how he will ensure that this project will be rigorously managed from start-to-finish, to ensure that it is delivered on time and to the current assigned budget or, for the sake of our hard-pressed tax payers, preferably much less?

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, responded that the £68M figure quoted was not what it was intended to spend on Spindles and the plans for it had not yet been finalised. More than 2000 people had responded to the consultation and provided their ideas. External funding would be sought to reduce the overall cost to the Council.

Whilst the Opposition pointed to projects that had not come in on time or on budget, many projects had come in on budget and in time, or even better, including schools and leisure centres. The Administration was committed to regeneration and improving the Oldham economy and the Council was the only body that would do that. It would require taking a risk and being prepared to invest in the place and the people.

Question 2:

My second question to the Leader tonight references the sad anniversary yesterday of the first COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom.

This past year we have seen so much sacrifice and so much suffering.

Many of us have had COVID-19 or have seen loved ones, friends and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

(time limit 15 minutes)

14^th December 2020

25^th January 2021

22^nd February 2021

(time limit 15 minutes)

Council was asked to note the minutes of the following Joint Authority and Partnership meetings and the relevant spokespersons to respond to questions from Members.

The minutes of the Joint Authorities and Partnerships were submitted as follows:

Members raised the following questions:

1.    Councillor Hamblett asked the following question in relation to page 114 - Greater Manchester Combined Authority 27/11/20 – Item GMCA 188/20 – Bus Reform

“I would question the wisdom on investing huge sums of money on improving bus stops when there are less-and-less bus services using them; surely we need investment in more bus services first, especially as we emerge from Lockdown, before we invest in bus stops.

Can the relevant Cabinet Member tell me how much the recent improvements to local bus stops have cost the hard working council tax payers of this borough? And can I also ask who decided that these ‘improvements’ required the removal of the sensory tactile paving which assists the sight-impaired to access public transport?

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, responded that Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) secured funding through Growth Deal 3 for a ‘Bus Passenger Access Enhancements Project’ which would upgrade 505 existing bus stops across Greater Manchester with the aim of improving the passenger experience and delivering improved journey times for buses, whilst ensuring facilities were compliant with accessibility standards.

The chosen delivery method for this work in Oldham was for our own Highways Operations service to deliver these works on behalf of TfGM and therefore the available funding of £232,000 came into the transport capital programme. By the end of the project (due to complete in May 2021) it would have upgraded 46 bus stops within Oldham. The bus stop upgrades would include: raising kerb heights; footway treatment; the provision of a bus stop clearways; and the replacement of bus stop poles/plates.

As part of these works Oldham had not removed any tactile surfacing to the bus stops. The bus stop improvements were designed and constructed to TfGM guidelines, which were developed from GMPTE guidance used in Greater Manchester since at least 2007.

2.    Councillor Harkness asked a question in relation to Page 131 – Greater Manchester Combined Authority 27/11/20 – Item GMCA 211/20 – No Child goes Hungry

“Now that the Chancellor has decreed in his recent budget that the £20 weekly uplift in Universal Credit payments will only be extended until the end of September, what will the leaders of the ten GMCA authorities be doing to continue to put pressure on government ministers to change their minds and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9d

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Shah to MOVE and Councillor Chadderton to SECOND:

Islamophobia

Oldham has a rich history of people from different backgrounds and cultures living and working together. However, we know that there are groups of people that are marginalised, who are more likely to face inequality and discrimination than others. We believe the people of Oldham want to live in a place that is committed to fairness and equality of opportunity, a borough that tackles discrimination and prejudice, helping communities come together and celebrating our differences.

As champions of inclusivity, we take a no-tolerance approach to hate crimes. Hate crime victims are more likely to suffer repeat victimisation, more likely to suffer serious psychological impacts, and are less likely to report these crimes to the police. Hate crime can limit people’s opportunities and can lead to isolation and segregation. It is also damaging to the community, undermining integration and cohesion, and eroding shared values of acceptance and respect for others.

The Council adopted the working definition of Anti-Semitism as set out by the International Holocaust remembrance Alliance in 2017, and recognises the need additionally to recognise the working definition of Islamaphobia set out below.

 A study by the Muslim Council of Britain found that 59 percent of headlines in the British Press portray Muslims in a negative light, with Islam being misinterpreted and utilised by racists to create fear and promote hatred. Following an extensive consultation, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims has formulated a working definition of Islamophobia as:

"ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS."

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, considering the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

•          Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

•          Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

•          Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

•          Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

•          Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

•          Denying Muslim populations, the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 10.

Motion 1

Councillor Shah MOVED and Councillor Chadderton SECONDED the following MOTION:

Islamophobia

Oldham has a rich history of people from different backgrounds and cultures living and working together. However, we know that there are groups of people that are marginalised, who are more likely to face inequality and discrimination than others. We believe the people of Oldham want to live in a place that is committed to fairness and equality of opportunity, a borough that tackles discrimination and prejudice, helping communities come together and celebrating our differences.

As champions of inclusivity, we take a no-tolerance approach to hate crimes. Hate crime victims are more likely to suffer repeat victimisation, more likely to suffer serious psychological impacts, and are less likely to report these crimes to the police. Hate crime can limit people’s opportunities and can lead to isolation and segregation. It is also damaging to the community, undermining integration and cohesion, and eroding shared values of acceptance and respect for others.

The Council adopted the working definition of Anti-Semitism as set out by the International Holocaust remembrance Alliance in 2017 and recognises the need additionally to recognise the working definition of Islamaphobia set out below.

 A study by the Muslim Council of Britain found that 59 percent of headlines in the British Press portray Muslims in a negative light, with Islam being misinterpreted and utilised by racists to create fear and promote hatred. Following an extensive consultation, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims has formulated a working definition of Islamophobia as:

"ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS."

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, considering the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

•          Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

•          Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

•          Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

•          Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

•          Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

•          Denying Muslim populations, the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Sykes to MOVE and Councillor Williamson to SECOND:

A Tax on Excess Online Profits

Council notes that whilst smaller High Street non-food retail outlets have been forcibly closed, and are facing business failure, because of the COVID-19 Lockdown, larger national businesses and multi-national businesses offering on-line products have thrived, reporting bumper profits.

Council notes that recent proposals from the UN and the EU are working to establish an international consensus on business taxation, to minimise profit-shifting for the purpose of avoiding corporation tax, but that these proposals are not likely to be introduced in time to have any impact on the excess online profits that some companies have made off the back of the coronavirus epidemic.

Raising a bespoke tax on excess online profits has precedent in the UK, and Council expresses its disappointment that the Chancellor has not yet introduced such a tax and believes that if we are, as the Prime Minister claims, ‘all in this together’, then the excessive profits of such on-line businesses should be subjected to a greater level of tax, and that the revenue raised employed to support our hollowed out public services (local government, schools and health) and the financial recovery of our High Street retailers.

Council resolves to ask the Chief Executive to write to:

• The Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, urging him to introduce such a tax as soon as possible as one means to ensure that we are ‘all in this together’.
• Our three local MPs, the Greater Manchester Mayor and the Leaders of the other nine AGMA authorities to seek their support for such a tax.

Motion 2

Councillor Al-Hamdani to MOVE and Councillor C Gloster to SECOND:

Consultation on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Council notes that:

• The Conservative Party Manifesto for the 2017 General Election contained the following commitment:

‘We will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom Shared Prosperity Fund, specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations. The money that is spent will help deliver sustainable, inclusive growth based on our modern industrial strategy. We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies.’

• The Conservative Government promised to publish a UK Shared Prosperity Fund Consultation Paper in 2018.
• Successive Secretaries of State in the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government when responding to several questions in Parliament in both 2018 and 2019 confirmed that a consultation would take place.

• The promised consultation is now three years late.
• In the last round of European funding (2014-2020), Greater Manchester received £322.75m, split across European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) (£176.78m) and European Social Funding (ESF) (£145.97m), equivalent to an annual allocation of £53.8m.
• The Conservative Party website claims that ‘We will introduce the UK Shared Prosperity Fund when EU Structural Funds start to taper off from 2020-21…from April 2021’.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 11.

Motion 1

Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Williamson SECONDED the following MOTION:

A Tax on Excess Online Profits

Council notes that whilst smaller High Street non-food retail outlets have been forcibly closed, and are facing business failure, because of the COVID-19 Lockdown, larger national businesses and multi-national businesses offering on-line products have thrived, reporting bumper profits.

Council notes that recent proposals from the UN and the EU are working to establish an international consensus on business taxation, to minimise profit-shifting for the purpose of avoiding corporation tax, but that these proposals are not likely to be introduced in time to have any impact on the excess online profits that some companies have made off the back of the coronavirus epidemic.

Raising a bespoke tax on excess online profits has precedent in the UK, and Council expresses its disappointment that the Chancellor has not yet introduced such a tax and believes that if we are, as the Prime Minister claims, ‘all in this together’, then the excessive profits of such on-line businesses should be subjected to a greater level of tax, and that the revenue raised employed to support our hollowed out public services (local government, schools and health) and the financial recovery of our High Street retailers.

Council resolves to ask the Chief Executive to write to:

·         The Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, urging him to introduce such a tax as soon as possible as one means to ensure that we are ‘all in this together’.

·         Our three local MPs, the Greater Manchester Mayor and the Leaders of the other nine AGMA authorities to seek their support for such a tax.

Councillor Harkness spoke in support of the Motion.

Councillor Ahmad spoke in support of the Motion.

Councillor Fielding spoke in support of the Motion.

Councillor Sykes exercised his right of reply.

On being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in FAVOUR of the MOTION. The MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

Motion 2

Councillor Al-Hamdani outlined the proposed amendment, which was seconded Councillor C Gloster. The amendment was agreed without discussion.

Councillor Al-Hamdani MOVED and Councillor C Gloster SECONDED the following MOTION:

Consultation on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Council notes that:

·         The Conservative Party Manifesto for the 2017 General Election contained the following commitment:

‘We will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom Shared Prosperity Fund, specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations. The money that is spent will help deliver sustainable, inclusive growth based on our modern industrial strategy. We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies.’

·         The Conservative Government promised to publish a UK Shared Prosperity Fund Consultation Paper in 2018.

·         Successive Secretaries of State in the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government when responding to several questions in Parliament in both 2018 and 2019 confirmed that a consultation would take place.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Councillor Shah MOVED and Councillor Fielding SECONDED a

report which provided an update on how the Council and its partners continued to monitor and manage the impact of COVID-19 in Oldham.

COVID-19 was still circulating across the UK and new cases continued in Oldham every day. The report provided a summary of activity and demonstrated how the Council collectively managed and prevented the spread of COVID-19 across Oldham’s communities.

The report detailed the four key themes which were: Test and Trace; Vaccination; Enforcement and Compliance; and Community Engagement and Communications.

In relation to Test and Trace, on the 18th January 2021, Oldham had begun targeted testing at scale for those that could not work from home, setting up 4 large tests sites for twice-weekly routine testing. This utilised lateral flow devices with rapid results in approximately 30 minutes, ensuring that positive cases were identified at the earliest opportunity. This programme had been extended until the end of June 2021, and was moving towards a different model to significantly increase the number of testing sites at smaller venues that were better suited to meet the needs of residents. In relation to symptomatic testing, the network of local test sites (LTS) operated by NHS Test and Trace continued to operate to provide testing to people with coronavirus symptoms. Three LTS were currently in operation with plans underway for a 4th site in Failsworth. The 3 static sites were situated in:

·         Southgate Street Car Park, Centre of Oldham OL1 1DN

·         Peel Street in Chadderton, OL9 9JX

·         Honeywell Centre, Hadfield Street. Hathershaw, OL8 3BP

Although there was a national booking portal, Oldham continued to work with DHSC to make the process as flexible as possible for residents to ensure that lack of digital access was not present a barrier to being able to access testing. With regards to Contact Tracing and the Local Tracing Partnership (tier2), when an individual tested positive for COVID-19 they were first notified by text or email instructing them to isolate. The national contact tracing tier 2 team received information about all positive cases and attempted to contact to ensure that isolation requirements were understood and to acquire a list

of contacts that the positive case had been in contact with 2 days prior to symptom onset (or test date if there were no symptoms). If after 48hours, the national team had failed to make contact or been unable to acquire the contacts, the cases were securely passed to the Local Authority. Oldham Council only received details of cases who were Oldham residents.

In relation to vaccination, the original Government plan included a vaccination programme comprising 1) mass vaccination sites run by Regional NHS Teams and 2) local sites run by Primary Care Networks under nationally agreed Directly Enhanced Service contracts. A mass vaccination centre had been organised at Greater Manchester level at the Etihad Stadium. Uptake by Oldham residents of the Etihad facility was only just starting to become known to the Oldham system as this was a nationally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Legal Services which informed members of actions that had been taken following previous Council meetings and provided feedback on issues raised at those meetings.

Due to the limited time remaining in the meeting, Councillor Fielding agreed to provide a written response to a question submitted by Councillor Al-Hamdani.

RESOLVED that the actions taken regarding motions and actions from previous Council meetings be agreed and correspondence and updates received be noted.

The Council gave consideration to a report which asked Members to consider proposed new warding arrangements in response to the electoral review of the Council as detailed within the report.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) had announced in 2019 an electoral review for the Council. In 2020, the LGBCE concluded, after consultation that it was minded to proceed with 60 elected Members for the borough. That decision concluded stage 1 of the review.

Subsequently, the LGBCE launched stage 2 of the review- a public consultation exercise on new warding arrangements for which the deadline for submission was the 29th March 2021. A cross-party group of elected Members had considered the matter and various mapping models developed by officers from within the Strategy and Performance Service.

Members were informed that the LGBCE criteria included balancing the projected 2026 electorate in each proposed ward as equally as possible, usually keeping within 5% of the average. The 2026 electorate had been projected in an earlier submission required by the LGBCE and had been disaggregated to household level to allow flexibility in where boundaries were drawn. In line with LGBCE recommendations, officers had worked from the edges of the borough towards the centre. Officers first established broader, well-defined areas such as Saddleworth and Failsworth, where borough

boundaries and other features such as Parish areas and the motorway, limited the scope for change. In this way a variety of models were initially produced, and eventually reduced to one consensus model.

The LGBCE would review warding proposals against statutory criteria and all proposals must demonstrate how they meet the requirements.

The consultation was open to all interested parties and members of the public. The LGBC had emphasised that all submissions carried equal weight and all Members or groups could submit an individual submission.

Once the LBCE had considered all the proposals received during this phase of consultation, it would publish draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements. This was scheduled to take place between June and August 2021. Once the Commission had considered the representations and evidence as part of that consultation, it intended to publish final recommendations in November 2021.

New electoral arrangements for the borough were scheduled to come into effect at the borough council elections in 2023.

Councillor Fielding MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the recommendations set out in the report.

On being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in FAVOUR of the RECOMMENDATIONS.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The model of warding arrangements attached at Appendix 1 to the report be approved.

2.    The model of warding arrangements be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

Consideration was given to a report which asked the Council to approve amendments to its Constitution.

Members were informed that a refresh of the Council Constitution had been undertaken with two principal objectives in mind. Firstly, to ensure that all legislative and procedural references were current and up to date, including

cross referencing from descriptive content to more detailed procedures and, secondly, to look to simplify content so far as was possible in what would always be a complex procedural document, in order to aid both understanding and application to practical circumstances.

The report looked to progress changes to employment-related decision making arrangements that had been noted by the Council in June 2020 as recommended by the Members’ Constitutional Working Group, subject to the submission of further detail; refreshed terms of reference for the Health and Wellbeing Board; and have a commencement date determined for the

Council’s revised Overview and Scrutiny arrangements that had been agreed by Council in June 2020.

Councillor Fielding MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the recommendations set out in the report.

On being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in FAVOUR of the RECOMMENDATIONS.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The suggested amendments to Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) as part of the refresh of the Council’s Constitution arising from the review of employment related decision making and the refresh of the Health and Wellbeing Board terms of reference be agreed;

2.    The Employment Committee be requested to further consider the procedures and arrangements for the operation of the established Sub-Committees of the Committee;

3.    The review of the revised employment related decision making arrangements in 12 months time be agreed;

4.    It be agreed that the Council’s revised employment related decision making arrangements and Overview and Scrutiny arrangements be implemented with effect from the date of Annual Council, 19th May 2021;

5.    The dates for meetings of the Council’s revised Overview and Scrutiny arrangements as proposed in paragraph 4.2 be agreed;

6.    Any consequential amendments to the Council’s Constitution arising from the amendments as presented in the report be delegated to the Director of Legal.

Consideration was given to a report which highlighted on grounds of good governance, consequential amendments that were made to the Council Constitution during 2020 by the Director of Legal/Monitoring Officer under

delegated powers.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Members gave consideration to a report which presented their Annual Reports for 2020.

As part of the ongoing work to strengthen accountability to local people and their role as a Councillor in a co-operative borough, Elected Members were asked to produce an annual report presenting factual information of their work in the community over the last 12 months. Individual reports included ward priorities, work in the community in particular during Covid-19 pandemic and contact information.

Members were informed that their Reports were available to view under the Councillors’ section on Oldham Council’s website.

RESOLVED that the Member Annual Reports be noted.

Consideration was given to a report which proposed a Statement of Licensing Policy for approval. 

The Licensing Act 2003, the primary piece of legislation which regulated the alcohol, entertainment and late-night refreshment industry, required licensing authorities to prepare and publish a statement of their licensing policy every five years. The Policy must be kept under review and the licensing authority may make such revisions to it, as it considers appropriate. The Policy was underpinned by four licensing objectives, comprising the prevention of crime and disorder; the prevention of public nuisance; public safety; and the protection of children from harm, which must be considered by both operators and regulators.

The submitted proposed revised Policy was presented to the Council with principal areas of change or update being highlighted in the text. These areas particularly addressed –

·         protection of children from harm where advice had been received from the Safeguarding Children Board, for example in updating definitions;

·         Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Criminal Exploitation where a number of recommendations or encouragements were being made to licence holders and operators of licensed premises;

·         alcohol delivery services which had developed in recent years;

·         boxing, particularly in the consideration of ‘White Collar Boxing’, often undertaken for charity and involving non-boxers;

·         considerations following the inclusion of a Local Authority’s ‘Public Health’ department as a responsible Authority; and

·         pavement licences, the application for and issue of which had been encouraged during the Covid pandemic.

Councillor Brownridge MOVED and Councillor Fielding SECONDED the recommendations set out in the report.

On being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in FAVOUR of the RECOMMENDATIONS.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The report be noted;

2.    The new Statement of Licensing Policy be approved with immediate effect.

Councillor Roberts MOVED and Councillor Fielding SECONDED a report which sought approval to the arrangements necessary to formulate and prepare the joint development plan document (DPD) ‘Places for Everyone’, including the establishment of a joint committee to represent Oldham Council and the eight other GM districts (Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan).

Members were informed that, on 11 December 2020, following the withdrawal of Stockport Council from the production of the Greater Manchester Plan for Jobs, Homes & the Environment (the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework), the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) Executive Board had agreed in principle to the a joint Development Plan Document (DPD) for the nine remaining Greater Manchester (GM) districts, to cover strategic policies including housing and employment land requirements and, as appropriate, strategic site allocations and Green Belt boundary amendments and associated infrastructure.

A report was taken to AGMA Executive Board on 12th February 2021 setting out the next steps in relation to the Joint DPD of the nine GM districts, to be known as ‘Places for Everyone’, including the required decisions by individual Districts to initiate this process as set out in the recommendations in the report.

Approval to establish the new Joint Committee was a decision for each district according to their own Constitutional arrangements and approval to delegate the formulation and preparation of the Joint DPD to the Joint Committee was a Cabinet function.

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Sykes and agreed.

Councillor Sykes, Councillor Curley and Councillor Sheldon spoke against the recommendations.

A recorded vote was then taken on the recommendations as follows:

On a recorded VOTE being taken, 41 VOTES were cast in

FAVOUR of the RECOMMENDATIONS with 12 cast AGAINST and 0

ABSTENTIONS.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The making of an agreement with the other 8 Greater Manchester councils (Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan) to prepare a joint development plan document to cover strategic policies including housing and employment land requirements and, as appropriate, strategic site allocations and Green Belt boundary amendments and associated infrastructure across the nine districts be approved.

2.    It be agreed that Oldham Council’s lead Member for the joint committee be Leader of the Council and that the Cabinet Member for Housing be nominated as deputy,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.