(15 minutes for public questions and 25 minutes for Councillor questions)
Minutes:
The Mayor advised the meeting that the next item on the agenda in Open Council was Public Question Time. The questions had been received from members of the public and would be taken in the order in which they had been received. Council was advised that if the questioner was not present, then the question would appear on the screens in the Council Chamber.
The following questions had been submitted:
1. Question received from Chris Ackroyd via email:
“Could Oldham Council tell me why the Crompton UDC chain is locked in a safe in Shaw Parish Council Offices and has been for a number of years, instead it should be reunited with its medallion counterpart displayed at the civic centre - surely this valuable part of history should be in a safe, secure facility displayed for future generations. Will Council Officials instruct Shaw Parish Council to return it where it rightfully belongs.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that the Urban District Chain was originally loaned to Shaw and Crompton Parish Council whilst arrangements were made for the Parish Council to attain their own. This year was the 30th anniversary of the formation of the Shaw and Crompton Parish and it was expected that the chain would be returned to the Civic Centre as part of the celebrations. Initial discussions had taken place between the Mayor’s Office and the Parish Clerk. The Mayor would formally write to the Parish Chairman. The chain would be displayed with the other Urban District Council Chains in the heritage display cabinets at the Civic Centre.
2. Two similar questions were received regarding First Choice Homes Oldham.
Question received Mr. Stewart via email:
“Why are recently introduced Service Charges by FCHO being paid for by Housing Benefit? These Service Charges are not in my Tenancy Agreement so there is no legal, contractual obligation (confirmed by a Contract Lawyer) on the part of the council to spend public money to bail out FCHO incompetence and mismanagement. Doing so would mean mismanagement of public funds by the council.” And
Question received from Shaun McGrath via email:
“Why to date, some six months since FCHO tenants began their campaign against the new service charges, has not one single councillor made a public statement on FCHO breaking contract law?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded to both questions. First Choice Homes Oldham (FCHO) could (after consultation with affected tenants) increase, add, alter, reduce or remove any services for which a charge or charges for such services was paid or introduced a new service and charge for it. Therefore, there had not been a breach of any tenancy agreement or contracts. First Choice Homes Oldham and Oldham Council before the stock transfer levied service charges for many years for services such as communal heating, communal TV aerials, concierges and housing support services. In the 2010 Stock Transfer Offer Document, the Council made a five year rent promise that FCHO would only increase rents in line with Government policy and guidelines and that no new service agreements would be introduced for existing services without customer agreement. The five year rent promise in the Stock Transfer Offer Document had expired in February 2016 and Oldham Council ensured that this promise had been fully adhered to. The Government’s decision to reduce independent housing association rents like FCHO by 1% per annum for four consecutive years meant that in real terms FCHO had to find £3.5m of efficiency savings per annum and could no longer afford the provision of additional services free of charge. FCHO had confirmed that they had consulted with all affected tenants and Oldham Housing Benefits service prior to the introduction of the service charges to ensure all the proposed charges were eligible for Housing Benefit. If an individual FCHO customer qualified due to their low income, then the service charge would be paid by Housing Benefit.
FCHO are an independent registered housing provider, with rent and service charge setting for FCHO assets and therefore no longer under the control of Oldham Council. As a registered provider, FCHO was fully regulated by the Home and Communities Agency (HCA) who were responsible for ensuring that FCHO fully complied with the law.
3. Question asked by Noel Mahon:
“I represent an Oldham Community Group named “Save Royton’s Greenbelt”. We currently have a membership in excess of two thousand, three hundred concerned local residents. We have an association with similar community groups in Shaw and Chadderton that have memberships in excess of a further 2000 local residents between them. Our common aim is to oppose the GMSF proposals to build on Oldham's precious Greenbelt land. Furthermore, whilst we appreciate that further housing may be required to be provided within the Oldham Borough, we feel it is disproportionate to expect Royton, Shaw and Chadderton to bear the bulk of this proposed future housing allocation.
As the leader of Oldham Council, can you reassure the residents of Oldham that, regardless of any possible revision of the GMSF Draft Plan, OMBC will adopt a Policy of Brownfield First. By adopting this policy, Oldham Council would endeavour to proactively source brownfield sites as alternatives to building on registered greenbelt sites within the borough and not consider building on any greenbelt until all potential brownfield alternatives Boroughwide have been exhausted?”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise, confirmed that in line with the Government’s recent Housing White Paper, the Council would only amend Green Belt Boundaries when all other reasonable options had been exhausted. These options included:
· Brownfield sites;
· Estate regeneration;
· Underused and surplus public sector land;
· Optimising density; and
· Exploration whether other local authorities could help meet identified needs.
However, at this point, the Borough’s housing and employment land needs could not be met as legally required, then the Council would have no choice but to consider release of Green Belt to ensure that future generations had the quality housing and jobs needed to thrive.
4. Question received from Melanie Platt via email:
“What is the total global gross interest amount which the council expects to pay in the next financial year? I would like this figure to be the total and not to include any offsets or write downs from interest earned from other sources (given this is a global figure there should be no conflict of interest or commercial sensitivities).”
Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources, responded that the gross interest payable on outstanding debt (excluding any offsets or write-downs) was approximately £29.5m per annum of which £7.7m was interest payable direct to lenders such as the Public Works Loan Board and £21.8m was interest payable related to PFI projects that the Council had entered into.
5. Question received from Mrs. C. Birtles via email:
“I would like to ask why in the St Mary's ward we have 3 labour councillors and not a single one holds a surgery or any public meeting I can see. There are no activities organised unlike Councillor Ginny Alexandra ward that hold job clubs life long learning advice centre for all community. How can the councillors in St Marys ward represent the ward when they have no contact except by email with the people they are supposed to represent. With this kind of representation the Labour party will soon lose the trust of the people of Oldham, or do they think government by email is acceptable?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded with the correction that the St. Mary’s ward was represented by two Labour and one independent member. In terms of contact with the public, the Council’s approach was to allow each member to choose the method most appropriate for the communities they served. In some cases, this was to hold regular surgeries. However, this worked in some areas, but members had found that such surgeries were poorly attended in their ward. St. Mary’s ward members made themselves available by telephone and email and were happy to make arrangements to meet with residents when requested. The contact details for all Councillors were available via the Council’s website. In addition, the Councillors in question attended public meetings by invitation or arranged meetings in order for specific concerns to local people to be addressed. St. Mary’s ward councillors had used their local budget to support delivery of activities such as counselling services and the Citizen’s Advice Bureau from the NEON Community Hub at Holt Street. This location was central to the St. James’, St. Mary’s and Waterhead Wards and delivered support to nearby residents of those areas. For those parts of the St. Mary’s ward close to the town centre, this type of support was centrally provided. More broadly, and in line with other wards, the St. Mary’s ward councillors had supported numerous local groups this year such as the Higginshaw Rugby Club, the Ghazali Trust and Holy Cross Primary School to deliver activities for their communities.
6. Question received from Louie Hamblett via email:
“With the recent opening of the second city crossing, both services that either pass through or start at Shaw and Crompton terminate at the same location (East Didsbury). This means that all passengers heading into Manchester have to change at Victoria or St Peters Sq .
Would it not be better for Metrolink customers to have one service going to East Didsbury (via Exchange Square) and the other terminating at Ashton (via Piccadilly), and so connecting the vital link to a mainline station for passengers to travel from?
I conclude by asking members of this Council
Would they agree with myself that this is an inefficient and poorly planned service for Oldham?
Would they join me in imploring TFGM to rethink the Rochdale line plan to help it become a more efficient, reliable and cost-worthy service for the residents of Oldham that I know it has been and can be.”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded the routing patterns that were introduced as part of the opening of the Second City Crossing may change when a new operator takes over the Metrolink Service this summer. Oldham Council was already in discussion with Transport for Greater Manchester regarding the routing of Oldham Metrolink services with a view to changing routes to give Oldham residents more choice of destinations, including a direct link to Manchester Piccadilly Rail Station. A number of representations had been made on the issue to Metrolink service planners in recent months which had resulted in TfGM agreeing to look at alternatives for the Rochdale/Oldham line. The outcome of this work would be reported to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and it would ultimately be a decision for the ten Greater Manchester Council Leaders to agree the final routing pattern for when the new operator of the Metrolink took over this summer. The Council would continue to work with TfGM to secure an outcome over the coming weeks.
At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
The Mayor reminded Members that the Council had previously agreed that questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council. The following questions were submitted by Councillors on Ward or District matters:
1. Councillor Toor asked the following question:
“With the anticipated increase in housing within Medlock Vale & across West Oldham, would the Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years advise what are Oldham Council’s plans to meet this extra demand for schooling?”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that Northmoor Academy had opened as a result of pupil projections and demand in the West Oldham area. Projections were reviewed on a 12 monthly basis. If there were any changes, members would be made aware.
2. Councillor Ball asked the following question:
“Could the relevant cabinet member please give me an update on the progress towards Persimmon signing the agreement regarding the Northgate Estate, Moorside?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, responded that on investigation of the land ownership details for the purposes of the Section 38 agreement, it appeared that a small area of the highway was in unknown ownership. The Council were therefore amending the Section 38 Agreement to deal with the problem.
3. Councillor M. Bashforth asked the following question:
“Further to the council serving notice to clear the site in February, can the relevant cabinet member please give an update on the current situation with regard to the derelict building which at one time housed the ‘Sofa Company’ on Holden Fold Lane in Royton and can residents and ward members be assured of the continued support of the cabinet member and council officers in ensuring the notice is enforced and the safety of this site and local residents is ensured?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives confirmed that Environmental Health officers had served a legal notice on the owner of the building and asked for the building to be demolished. The notice would expire on 25th March 2017 and the owner had recently contacted the Planning Department to explore options for the site going forward.
4. Councillor Harkness asked the following question:
“The result of the Judicial Review by Mr. Justice Kerr relating to Saddleworth School, whilst dismissing most of the objectors’ claims, now causes further delays on a project where a new school should have occupied for the preferred site for quite some time.
The Manchester Evening News and Oldham Chronicle reported that “The Court heard the Council accepted that redeveloping the school on its existing site, whilst a more expensive option, would be ‘viable and affordable’.
The implication of this statement being that the Education Funding Agency would provide even more funding to cover the significant costs of building in Uppermill and presumably financially supporting the decant of students to alternative accommodation during the process.
This contradicts every single briefing I and my colleagues have ever received from Oldham Council and others.
Would the cabinet member please clarify the situation? If the accusations are true, then will she agree to a full investigation and disciplinary action and, if they are false, agree that the local media reports of this nature are irresponsible and misleading?
I am more than willing to work with the cabinet member to ensure that we get a new school for Saddleworth, something some others seem set against.”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years, responded that the issue was still ongoing. Councillor Chadderton expressed her thanks to the Liberal Democrat Group in the Saddleworth area for their support. The reasonable majority were being drowned out by a vocal minority. Officers had met with the Education Funding Agency and the DfE since the Judicial Review and the current position remained the same. Diggle was still the preferred site. A meeting had been held with the Headteacher, the Chair of Governors and a meeting was being arranged with the local group in favour of the school site. The reports in the residents’ group opposed to the site were misleading. The Council position had not changed and all parties remained committed to the project. Saddleworth children deserved a new school and to be taught in modern facilities if they were to excel. The commitment to bring a new school to Saddleworth was confirmed.
5. Councillor Jacques asked the following question:
“It was widely reported that the heavy downpours on the evening of Monday the 21st November caused flooding in parts of Saddleworth. However Saddleworth was not the only area to have been affected. Stannybrook Road in Failsworth was flooded so badly that the road was completely closed that evening. This caused inconvenience for residents and the popular Daisy Nook Garden Centre.
This was not the first time Stannybrook road has been affected in this way and so I would like to ask the relevant cabinet member what measures are the Council taking to try and reduce the risk of flooding in this area?”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, responded that in recent years there had been unprecedented levels of intense rainfall, which had caused flooding issues not just locally but nationally as reported. Unfortunately, low lying areas near to riverbanks such as Stannybrook were now unfortunately more prone to flooding events, with water levels breaching previous defences – in this case parts of the road through Stannybrook. Unity Partnership’s Drainage and Highway Engineers were aware of the problem and were reviewing what practical options and defences could be afforded, mindful of the Council’s economic constraints. The Council’s Head of Strategic Facilities Management has made arrangements to visit the premises owner to discuss the matter and see what, if any, short-term measures could be considered.
6. Councillor Mushtaq asked the following question:
“Alexandra Ward councillors invested some of their budget in CCTV cameras to help combat fly tipping. Can the relevant Cabinet member tell us when we can expect to see them installed?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives confirmed that the Council had completed the tendering process and officers were addressing the important issues surrounding information security and governance prior to installation. One of the deployable cameras which had been purchased was being piloted in the Hathershaw area in a direct attempt to combat the problems associated with continuing flytipping. The result of the pilot would help structure how the cameras were used in the future.
7. Councillor Fielding asked the following question:
“Dog fouling in Failsworth has visibly increased in recent months and I have received a number of enquiries from concerned residents including the PTA at St. Mary's Primary School. I have erected a number of 'Love Where You Live' signs in the worst locations but the impact of these is limited. Could the cabinet member responsible investigate and advise whether there is anything more the Council could do centrally to tackle this problem through stiffer enforcement, a targeted communications campaign or otherwise?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, sympathised with the gross problem for residents. Residents were encouraged to report details to focus enforcement officer patrols. Officers would be asked to given consideration to a communications campaign and installation of enforcement signage around the school.
8. Councillor Murphy asked the following question:
“Should Crompton House School staff and Governors agree to an almost 50% increase in pupil numbers - will Oldham Council as a partner at the earliest opportunity, before plans are submitted for planning permission, agree that a community involvement process (in other words a public consultation) takes place where residents will have the opportunity to comment?”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that public consultation would take place as part of the planning process for the Crompton Housing Governing Body to increase the numbers to 1500.
9. Councillor McLaren asked the following question:
“The Block Lane residents Association have expressed some concern about the condition of the carriageway on Robinson Street. Would the appropriate cabinet member be able to advise on the date when the next inspection is due and whether there are any outstanding repairs still to be completed?”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that Robinson Street was inspected annually with the last safety inspection carried out on 31st August 2016. A number of carriageway defects had been identified and repairs were completed on 20th September 2016. A missing street nameplate was also identified and this was replaced on 17th October 2016. There were no outstanding work orders for Robinson Street. The next scheduled inspection was due in August 2017.
10. Councillor Roberts asked the following question:
“At a recent meeting between the police and Royton North Guinness Partnership tenants there were numerous complaints about the poor responses from the 101 telephone service. Could the relevant Cabinet Member press the Police and Crime Commissioner to investigate and find a way of getting the 101 service phones answered more quickly to enable residents to report crimes and have confidence in using this service?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that a piece of work was being undertaken which explored a number of alternative pathways for contacting the police. A new website was being developed that would have an online reporting tool. There would also be information and advice available that would enable answers to be found to frequently asked questions through the 101 services. It was intended that this would reduce the demand on the 101 telephone service in order for people who did need to speak to someone to get through more quickly. The advice from Greater Manchester Police was that the 101 service was less busy at off peak times, therefore unless you needed the police to respond to an ongoing incident it would be better to contact them at a less busy time. Concerns were shared and the Community Safety Manager would raise the issue again at the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Leads meeting.
11. Councillor Garry asked the following question:
“Parking at the Lord Lane shopping parade is of significant concern to local residents in the area, there are simply too few spaces to meet demand. Meanwhile there is a large area of tarmacced open space adjacent to the post office which has become an informal car park for the area, though without markings the space is not used as efficiently as it could be. Could the cabinet member responsible investigate the ownership of this land and whether it would be possible to provide additional parking in the area at this location?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the land in question was not in Council ownership. Officer had made enquiries with the Land Registry and ascertained details of the registered owner who would be approached to explore the potential for the land to be used as a car park as suggested. There were likely to be costs if terms were agreed and an appropriate budget would need to be identified. Progress would be reported in due course.
12. Councillor Sheldon asked if consideration could be given to concerns around the junction on the A635 at the Royal George Hotel. This was the only junction where the roads had a speed restriction of 30 mph but increased to 40 mph just before the junction. He asked if the 40 mph signs could be removed for speed reduction and to make the junction safer.
Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, agreed to the request.
13. Councillor Ali asked the following question:
“Residents of Chadderton North have recently been concerned with the increase in burglaries. In response Ward councillors have done a great deal of engagement with residents, in partnership with officers and police in providing useful advice in keeping their property safe. It is acknowledged there is still work to be done. Chadderton North is generally a safe area, were people aspire to live. The fact remains, residents are still concerned with the very low levels of prosecutions taking place.
I would like to know from the relevant cabinet member; if there is anything that can be done by the Council to deter and detect burglars or increase prosecution in the affected areas.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that all nine elected members from the Chadderton District contributed to the Secure Homes Scheme which funded target hardening of properties. Since the scheme started in 2013, over 50 homes had received security improvements and this work continued. Visible security measures were a deterrent. It was also essential that residents did not leave themselves vulnerable to burglary by leaving doors and windows open. Successful prosecutions relied upon the evidence available to the Crown Prosecution Service. There were ongoing prosecutions and disruption work was taking place. There was regular information sharing between Community Safety and Police Officers from Oldham and Manchester for the identification of criminals who were coming into the borough to commit offences. Where offenders were identified, in addition to criminal prosecution, consideration would be given to the use of civil powers such as Criminal Behaviour Orders to control and disrupt criminality. Any person with information was asked to contact the police on 101 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
14. Councillor S. Bashforth asked the following question:
“The busy industrial estates on Salmon Fields, Moss Lane and the old gas works together with the large distribution depots in Shaw generate a constant stream of HGV traffic 24hrs a day down the stretch of Broadway from Elk Mill to Shaw Rd. End and beyond.
This causes continuing noise nuisance from the traffic in the late evening and early hours of the morning, mainly caused by these HGVs.
Following discussions with the residents and after looking at the data collected from recent speed/volume surveys we feel there are two options that should be considered.
• Extend the 30mph speed limit to fully include the entire length of the section of Broadway, from Shaw Road End to the Elk Mill roundabout.
• And secondly to move the existing speed camera from its current, ineffective location, to a position where it is much more likely to discourage speeding and catch those who do.
Will the relevant cabinet member support us to impress on Greater Manchester Drive safe how necessary this action is?”
Councillor F. Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services understood that a number of traffic and speed surveys had been undertaken on Broadway in response to local concerns about the alleged speed of, and vibrations caused by, HGV’s along the road. The surveys’ findings did not suggest that there was a particular issue with either speeding or excessive use, particularly regarding the nature and function of the existing road. Officers would be asked to examine a way forward to the concerns which had been raised.
15. Councillor Dean asked the following question:
“Could the Cabinet Member for Education, update me on issues that have received significant media interest about Clarksfield School Governing Body . These issues are creating great concern and distress to parents and the local community. And we hope the situation is resolved as early as possible.”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that since the media report around perceived issues on Clarksfield the Council had been working closely with the Governing Body and the Headteacher over the last few months related to governance and this work continued. It was understood how media interest caused concern, but this had been unfair and not reflective of what had gone on in the school. A response had been sent to the local MP. Responses and an offer of a meeting had been sent to local ward councillors, but no response had yet been received from them.
16. Councillor Gloster asked the following question:
“My constituent has recently moved into a FCHO property at George Street Shaw. The rear garden, if that is what it can be described as, backs onto George Street Playing Fields. The garden itself could only be described as a boggy jungle and in no way represents a garden. FCHO have replaced a practically none existent fence and turned the jungle over with a machine, however this garden remains unusable as it is a waterlogged mud bath.
Representations to FCHO reveal that they are not prepared to put land drains into gardens unless the water is likely to have a structural effect upon the property. As a result, the two children of Ms Kennedy are unable to play in their own garden for reasons of health and safety.
Can I ask the Cabinet Member how FCHO can justify letting properties where such Health and Safety issues exist, ?and when fully aware of these issues, are not prepared to rectify them, putting tenants at risk, and what can be done to remedy this situation.”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that she had raised the issue with First Choice Homes Oldham. The property was in a bad state when the tenant had moved in and completing work on the sloping and flooded garden had been exacerbated by bad weather. FCHO have said the issue would be escalated, a specialist drainage survey would be completed as soon as possible for a resolution on the ongoing problems as well as issues related to the slope of the garden. Councillor Brownridge had been assured that FCHO would keep Councillor Gloster and his constituent updated on progress.
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 by noted.