(time limit 30 minutes – maximum of 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per response)
Minutes:
The Leader of the Main Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:
Question 1:
“My first question tonight to the Leader relates to the recent fire at Maple Mill in Hathershaw.
My understanding is that the firefighters on attending the fire, found that the building was a huge repository for the illegal dumping of waste and that the combustible nature of these materials contributed to the longevity and severity of the blaze?
Not only did this situation further jeopardise the lives of firefighters and other emergency service workers, as well as some of our own officers and staff from First Choice Homes Oldham, all courageously attending the incident, but there was the potential of toxic air pollution impacting on the lives and health of residents in the surrounding area.
My understanding is that the dumping of rubbish in Maple Mill was not a one-off and that there are reports of similar activity at many of the redundant industrial premises and old mills in our Borough.
Can the Leader please tell me what she knows about the extent of this problem and what is being done by our officers and those of other public agencies to stop it? And would she like to tell Council how members of the public – as our eyes and ears in our communities – can help this effort?
And can she also give me any estimate as to the potential cost to this local authority, or to the emergency services, from clear-up operations and attending to further incidents of this nature involving this blight?
I would have thought the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds if this illegal practice is widespread as I believe it could be.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that members, staff and agencies did an excellent job in responding to the incident. There had been concerns about air quality and interventions had been made related to residents and staff working in the area and issues dealt with in a dignified manner. The situation was more serious that a fire in a mill first appeared as events unfolded. There had been significant dumping at the mill. It had been discovered that the basement had been capped with concrete which had trapped methane gas. Methane was an industrial waste. Conversations had taken place with the Environment Agency as this was an environmental crime. An estimate of £100,000s was below the final cost. If members or residents were aware of incidents of illegal dumping anywhere they were requested to report it.
Question 2:
“My next question concerns the future of the Greater Manchester University Technical College building, which is on Middleton Road next to Oldham College. Members will be aware of the recent fiasco that was the wholesale academic under-performance at this expensive white elephant. Millions spent on a building and equipment and nothing to show for it, as not one of the initial cohort of forty six students achieved a Grade C in both English and Mathematics and the College is now scheduled for closure.
This is such a waste – such a waste of public money and such a waste of the promise and potential that these young students had – but with the College’s closure there must also be an opportunity. For Oldham College sits right next door to this soon abandoned building and Oldham College is crying out for more new quality buildings in which to deliver tuition.
So can I tonight through you, Mr. Mayor, make a plea to the Leader and to the Cabinet Member for Education that they make urgent representations to the key decision-makers in the Department for Education asking them to transfer this publically funded asset to Oldham College?
This must be common-sense? For at least then we will see something come out from this mess that will be of long-term benefit for the students of this Borough and a small vindication of the spending over £9 million pounds.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise responded that members would have said “told you so” on a number of certain free schools and academisations which was a direct result of fragmentation of education. The authority was responsible for the education of students. However, control over the institutions was being wrenched away. It was a shame that those young people who had graduated had not received a qualification. The Leader agreed to join in the representations to be made to transfer the asset to Oldham College.
Question from the Leader of the Conservative Party:
Councillor Hudson’s question requested an update on the replacement of Greenfield Primary School.
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise referred to page 75 of the Council Summons, Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 27th February 2017, Item 6, Proposal to Expand Greenfield CP School – Public Notice and Statutory Consultation Responses. The planned expansion had been approved. The Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years would provide a written response to all Saddleworth Councillors.
The Mayor reminded the meeting that Council has agreed that, following the Leaders’ allocated questions, questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council.
1. Councillor Mushtaq asked the following question:
“Much of Alexandra Ward is in the Selective Licensing Scheme, Can the relevant cabinet member report on the impact that the scheme is having?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives confirmed that three distinctive selective licensing neighbourhoods were located within the ward and had become fully operational in a phased approach agreed by Cabinet. Each of the neighbourhoods were now in their second year of the five year scheme. In total, there were 2,263 properties that were part of the selective licensing scheme in the Alexandra ward and from this the team had already received over 300 applications for licenses from private landlords. Progress with the scheme across all eight neighbourhoods was recently reported to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Comment where the reporting regime on the impact of the scheme had been approved. It was agreed that the scheme would report at the end of Year 2 and Year 4 for each neighbourhood which measured the impact against the original criteria. The impact of the scheme would be examined across all the neighbourhoods.
2. Councillor Dearden asked the following question:
“Could the relevant Cabinet Member confirm the Teaching Schools based in Oldham and summarise the work they do to provide school to support? Is she able to tell us more about the recent announcement of a Research School and how this new initiative will fit in with the work already done by our Teaching Schools?”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that there were five teaching schools in Oldham: Blue Coat; Kingfisher and Mills Hill; Oasis Limeside; St. Chad’s CE Primary School; and New Bridge. The Teaching Schools played an important role in the Oldham Education Partnership by supporting Initial Teacher training, providing newly qualified teacher training and hosting professional development events. In addition, teaching schools were an integral to the local School Improvement model as they provided direct support to schools. In January this year, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Department for Education announced additional funding for Research Schools in the Social Mobility Opportunity Areas. Research Schools were intended to give additional capacity to Oldham Schools, alongside, Teaching Schools by sharing the knowledge and detail of best practice as identified by research from a range of schools and educational providers.
3. Councillor Garry asked the following question:
“In this year's budget the Chancellor announced an increase in the rate of Class 4 National Insurance contributions. This was contrary to the Conservative Party's 2015 election manifesto pledge not to increase National Insurance contributions and would have affected the thousands, and growing numbers of self-employed people in Oldham.
The Chancellor's humiliating U-Turn less than a week later is therefore welcome. However, there is now an estimated £2 billion black hole in the Country's finances because of this incompetence?. Does the relevant cabinet member have any indication where this money will come from? Are we expecting the government to abdicate responsibility for their shambles and again pass the cuts to local Council's like ours which have already been hit disproportionately by austerity?”
Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources responded that at this time there was no information as to how the Chancellor would fill the ‘black hole’. The Chancellor had advised that he would use the next Autumn Budget to set out further measures to ‘fund in full’ the “£2 bn” lost from dropping this particular measure. It was possible that Local Government would receive further cuts but this was not known at this time. Many self-employed people worked extremely hard, and small businesses earned a small amount of money. The “u-turn” was welcomed but the Council would have to wait until the Autumn Statement if Local Government was to receive any further cuts.
4. Councillor Murphy asked the following question:
“The Cabinet Member for Housing will doubtless recall that I have previously asked a number of questions about the future use for housing of sites currently occupied by derelict mills.
In December 2015, we witnessed the dramatic destruction by fire of the Maple Mill in Hathershaw, a location with a previous history of blazes – and at this point Mr. Mayor I would just to take a moment to pay tribute to the professional and courageous response to this incident by our own staff, those of the emergency services and of First Choice Homes Oldham.
Can I ask the Cabinet Member, in light of the need to build more homes in our borough and our desire to build these homes wherever possible on Brownfield sites, whether a commitment can be given by this Administration tonight to use this cleared site for housing and so eliminate an eyesore and save some small part of our precious Green Belt?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that sites could only be allocated for housing that were suitable, available and viable. The site would be examined with other brownfield mill sites against the criteria in the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Guidance.
5. Councillor Fielding asked the following question:
“Recently Derby Council have advised their local parents that they will not fine the parents who take their children on Holiday during School Term Time. Could the Cabinet member please advise what Oldham Council’s guidelines are on this matter?”
Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that Oldham did not presently issue Penalty Notice fines for Holidays in term time unless there were previous unauthorised absences and attendance was less than 90% and a warning letter had been issued prior to the holiday.
6. Councillor Goodwin asked the following question:
“I had the opportunity of accompanying the Neighbourhood Beat Officer for my ward recently, to observe his role and work he undertakes. During this time, I observed large groups of youths, mainly under the age of 18, congregating in several locations. These groups were in excess of 100 in number and I can appreciate the disruption and annoyance this causes to residents affected by this. I can also appreciate that some of the youths themselves are extremely vulnerable due to the consumption of alcohol or other substances. With the Easter holidays, lighter nights and then the Summer Holidays approaching, I can envisage this being a serious concern.
Can I ask the Cabinet member responsible, that adequate resources will be provided to the officers involved with young people and that partners, such as the Police, licensing and community safety are involved fully to alleviate this situation?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that the increases seen related to anti-social behaviour had already been recognised as a priority for the Community Safety and Cohesion Partnership for 2017. Planning was already underway for a number of partnership initiatives to take place throughout the Spring and Summer and officers from Community Safety, the Detached Youth Team, Licensing, Children’s Social Care, Positive Steps, Metrolink and the TravelSafe Unit would be working with local Neighbourhood Policing Teams on the initiatives. A number of Stay Safe Operations would be scheduled throughout 2017. Stay Safe was specifically targeted at ensuring that young people identified as vulnerable through intoxication were safe and that parents / guardians / carers were notified immediately about their condition so they could be collected. The work would be resource intensive and funding would be sought from all available sources to support any work which needed to take place which could not be met through mainstream capacity. Any young people who were identified as being involved in anti-social behaviour would also be contacted by the Community Safety Team. The Team would be working closely with GMP and the use of all available tools and powers to tackle anti-social behaviour would be considered. Parents would also be aware that they may face consequences if they failed to control the behaviour of their children or were found to be supplying alcohol to their children.
7. Councillor Roberts asked the following question:
“Could the relevant Cabinet Member update us on the implications of the changes to Business Rates for businesses in Oldham, including the changes announced in the budget also notable for the attempted raid on the income of the self-employed?”
Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and HR responded that due to the 2017 revaluation, Oldham businesses would, on average, pay less business rates. In the ‘Policy Landscape’ report presented to Budget Council, it was estimated that Business Rates payable by Oldham businesses would reduce by around £5.2m. Paragraph 3.52 of that report detailed other Government measures designed to help businesses including changes to Small Business Rates Relief Thresholds. It was widely reported that businesses had been concerned about the impact of revaluation especially for those in more prosperous areas of the country. The Chancellor’s recent budget acknowledged these concerns. The Government would set out its preferred approach to future revaluations in due course and would consult on it prior to the next revaluation exercise in 2022. Three new measures to help businesses would also be announced by the Chancellor:
· No business losing small business rates relief would see an increase by more than £50 per month in 2017/18;
· All public houses with a rateable value of less than £100,000 would receive a £1,000 rates discount for 2017/18;
· Local authorities would receive a share of £300m in new funding over four years to deliver discretionary relief to local business that had been hit hard in the 2017 revaluation. Oldham’s share was £301,000 for 2017/18, £140,000 for 2018/19, £60,000 in 2019/20 and £9,000 in 2020/21.
The DCLG had published a consultation on the design of the additional discretionary relief and also sought views on other issues such as the allocation of the £300m new funding. The consultation would be open until 7 April 2017 and the Council would prepare a response. The new policy would be introduced when final guidance had been issued.
8. Councillor Gloster asked the following question:
“1st – 31st March is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Organised by Prostate Cancer UK, this special month aims to raise awareness of prostate cancer, as well as raise money so the charity can provide even better support to both sufferers and their families.
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and it is thought that here in the UK around 36,000 are diagnosed with this terrible disease each year.
Throughout the awareness month volunteers from Prostate Cancer UK are working across local communities, giving group talks and providing information.
Can the Cabinet Member please tell me what work is being carried out by our public health to work with Prostate Cancer UK staff to increase public awareness and early diagnosis of this awful disease?”
Councillor Moores, Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing responded there were approximately 40 deaths from prostate cancer in Oldham every year. This compared to approximately 150 deaths per year from lung cancer and 40 from breast cancer. Public Health coordinated work on cancer through the Health and Wellbeing Board’s Health Protection Sub-Group and there were several campaigns to improve public awareness and prevention, for example, through screening programmes and tackling lifestyle risk factors such as obesity. Oldham was in the early stages of implementing the GM Cancer Champions initiative which included work on prevention of all forms of cancer. Cancer champions would be introduced in the voluntary sector. Work included raising awareness and signposting with local communities and working with General Practice for the initiation of brief interventions on cancer screening and prevention. Oldham had been selected to take part in a GM pilot study with Salford to improve communication around cancer prevention and support for patients and relatives with cancer. Cancer Research UK would provide 2 cancer nurses who would hold ‘drop in’ clinics for residents on a fortnightly basis.
9. Councillor Ali asked the following question:
“The Chancellor in his recent budget proposal announced an extra £2BN for social care. I would like to know what it means for Oldham in real terms? Will Oldham's allocation compensate for the cash that has been squeezed out over several years from the social care system at every point? In particular will this additional amount resolve the issues facing social care in Oldham?”
Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding responded that the announcement from the Chancellor on the 8th of March resulted in the Council being awarded extra funding for social care of £5.1m for 2017/18, £3.2m for 2018/19 and £1.6m in 2019/20. The funding was very welcome, however, a long term solution for the funding challenges within Adult Social Care was required. This would not compensate the Council for all the budget reductions it had to make from social care since 2010 when the austerity regime was introduced and the cuts to Local Government funding started. The Council had to support Adult Social Care particularly when the 2016/17 and 2017/18 budgets were set by allocating resources to address pressures which arose from the national living wage, increased demand and support for the local hospital in managing delayed transfers of care. In addition, the adult social care market was fragile and providers were challenged operating within the existing price framework. This resulted in regular requests for uplifts to the fees the Council paid for services. Formal guidance was expected for how the money was spent, and there was an expectation that the NHS would be supported in its applications. The additional funding would not resolve all the issues, but it would help. The Council was giving consideration as to the best way for the new resources to be utilised.
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.