(time limit 30 minutes)
Minutes:
The Leader of the Main Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:
Question 1: A future for Oldham’s town centre shopping centres?
“My first question tonight concerns the future of the Spindles and Town Square shopping centres. It would be remiss of me firstly to not congratulate the Leader on becoming Oldham Borough’s biggest shopkeeper. It is a bold venture to purchase not one, but two shopping centres, in today’s retail climate, but I understand the Leader described it as an ‘absolute bargain’. Let us all hope so. Many of the units in both the Spindles and the Town Square shopping centres lie empty, some of these for a long time, and consequently many residents are wondering whether this in fact represents a risky purchase. Town centres across Britain are becoming increasingly devoid of customers as many people are today wary of stepping much further than their doorsteps with the ever-present threat of Covid-19, and the pandemic has massively exacerbated the trend of the last decade for shoppers to turn more and more to their keyboards to order goods from mail order stores or the supermarket. The Leader has spoken about moving Tommyfield Market in its entirety into these two shopping centres and relocating hundreds of Council staff above the shops, though I am sure many will be working from home for the foreseeable future, if not forever. These actions to repurpose the shopping centres will cost significant sums of money as will their refurbishment. The Council’s relationship with some Tommyfield Market traders has in recent history not been a happy one with some traders feeling abandoned. Can the Leader tonight tell us what discussions Council officers have held in advance of the purchase with the Tommyfield Market traders, what their response has been to the proposals, and what incentives and support this Council will provide them with to make the move? Now the Leader has let us know the purchase cost of £9.5m to Oldham Council Taxpayers. Can he also tell us more about the Administration’s plans for these two shopping precincts to make them vibrant once more, whether as a renewed and reduced retail offer, as town centre homes, as a new civic hub, or event as a potential new home for Coliseum?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills thanked the Leader of the Main Opposition for the constructive challenge on the issue and many of the questions he had raised on behalf of residents which the Leader noted were legitimate concerns for people to raise. The Leader responded that it was a disappointment to walk around Spindles and the Town Square Shopping Centre as it was at the moment with the number of vacant units and that was why the Council’s control of the shopping centre allowed something to be done that could stimulate things and drive more footfall into the shopping centre by repurposing it in many of the ways that had already been discussed, moving Tommyfield traders to there and potentially moving many Council staff in there as some staff would still need desks and places to work and some staff liked coming into work because people were social animals and that absence of interaction was something that had taken a toll on many members of staff’s mental health so there would be a demand for office space. In terms of refurbishment of the Centre, an allocation was made for purchases within the capital programme and the allocation was significantly larger than the final price of the Spindles Shopping Centre and so there was sufficient give within the capital programme to complete remodelling works within the budget as necessary in order to relocate both Tommyfield and office space and whatever else it might be without creating an additional drag or a need to revisit and expand the capital programme. With regard to discussion with the Tommyfield Market Traders, the Leader noted a meeting with the traders where traders were asked what they considered to be retail core of Oldham Town Centre and the challenges they faced by not being perceived to be within that retail core and were perceived to be on the edge of town. It was the traders themselves who had suggested moving into vacant space in Market Place in Oldham Town Centre and had suggested the former Littlewoods Building which was now Primark as a missed opportunity, but if not there into Spindles itself, so this was a suggestion that had come from a number of market traders in which they were enthusiastic about before the option for purchasing the shopping centre had been explored. There had been discussions since with more traders where they were made aware of the news of the purchase of the shopping centre before it went into the newspapers and heard it directly from the Council rather than the press and that had received some positive comments. There had been a number of comments of concern about the uncertainty and timescale and what it meant for traders in the future but now that the news had settled down, the feedback was that the majority of traders were up for moving and recognised that the current building, which did attract a subsidy from the Council to keep it sustainable and did have a number of backlog maintenance issues in the building which may never be resolved, the traders were up for the move and understood why it was necessary. Now that the Tommyfield Market Traders had certainty over the length of time that they would remain in the building before the they were asked to move to Spindles if they wanted to remain in Oldham, the Council could start to look at the money used to support them in terms of rent or whatever that might be. A question had been around how long support would have been needed, but now that the timescale was known, ways of supporting Tommyfield Market Traders could be looked and to engage with them on the best way to do that.
Question 2: Building on Brownfield Sites
“I wish to turn to a very topical subject for my next question. A subject heightened in importance by the recent publication of the latest Oldham Plan and the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework proposals, namely the use of brownfield land to build houses upon. I am sure that the Leader will be aware that the Town and Country Planning (Brownfield Land Register) Regulations 2017 require local authorities to prepare, maintain and publish a register of brownfield land. The register should identify previously developed sites in the Borough that are considered as being suitable for housing. The present government supposedly has a target to build 300,000 homes in each of the next five years. A recent study by the countryside charity, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, has found there is enough brownfield land that has been previously developed to provide space to build 300,000 homes in England in each of the next four years. And then some. In fact, enough land to build One Million Three Hundred Thousand homes in all. Given that this administration has now - rightly – adopted a Brownfield First policy and the Oldham public are, rightly, up in arms about any possibly of building on the Green Belt, can the Leader tell me how many homes the sites listed currently on the Council’s Brownfield Register accommodate?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills thanked the Leader of the Main Opposition for the recognition of the Brownfield First Policy. It was a policy that was particularly challenging to put into practice in Oldham because of the remediation costs of many of the brownfield sites and also the complexity of the ownership of the sites. It was something the Council remained committed to because, as with all members, the Council wanted to protect as much of the green belt from development as it could. In terms of the number of homes the Council was required to provide land for as part of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) which was based on, what the Leader felt to be inflated figures to meet the Conservative Party manifesto pledge to build 300,000 homes per year. In terms of the numbers to be constructed on brownfield sites, this was more than 8,000 out of a total of 11,000. So the number of homes in total in the plan was in excess of 11,000 of which fewer than 3,000 would be built on or proposed to be built on land released from the greenbelt. The Leader said that it was clear that the majority of homes that would be built during the period of the GMSF would be on brownfield sites. The Council could look in the future at picking up some of the slack on other brownfield sites that had not necessarily been identified or had been discounted as they were either expensive to remediate or had complex ownership issues, but the plan was a plan for the next 20 years and that was to meet housing requirements as set out by the Conservative Government.
Councillor Hudson, Leader of the Conservative Group asked the following question:
“We are in the middle of the biggest crisis of this century and people of this borough now need to know more than ever where their hard earned money is being spent and how. As the Council faces financial pressures due to Covid-19 and I pay tribute to the Council staff who are going the extra mile to make sure the public services continue as best they can. So will the Council Leader please confirm if the cost of the purchase of the Spindles Shopping Centre includes all liabilities?”
The Leader of the Council sought clarification on liabilities and Councillor Hudson responded and asked if debts had been included.
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that no money was borrowed to purchase the Spindles Shopping Centre, the purchase price was £9.5m which was less than a quarter of the price the previous owners had paid for it. All appropriate due diligence had been done by Finance staff as was expected at the Council.
The Mayor reminded the meeting that the Council had agreed that, following the Leaders’ allocation questions, questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council.
1. Councillor McLaren asked the following question:
“Telecommunications technology continues to evolve and residents have expressed concerns about masts that are being erected in various parts of the borough, could the cabinet member responsible for planning please advise us what powers the council have to control these types of developments?”
Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that telecommunications development was one of the Government’s priorities as set out within Section 10 of the NPPF. As a result, they mostly benefited from permitted development rights, meaning they do not in most cases require planning permission. However, masts were in most part subject to the prior approval of the Council. The issues that the Council could consider under the prior approval were however very limited. They were specifically limited to ‘siting and appearance’. All other issues (such as health implications, etc) were outside the prior approval regime. In relation to siting, consideration was usually restricted to whether the siting jeopardised highway safety, e.g. where the structure was to be sited on a footpath. The Council could refuse prior approval on grounds of siting if there was a demonstrable harm to public safety, but not health concerns. Under appearance, the Council would usually consider visual impact but in most cases, as the structures were required to be designed in specific ways, it was difficult to control their appearance. The Council may, however, consider mitigating measures to soften visual impact where appropriate.
2. Councillor Malik asked the following question:
“It has been well documented in the local media that the Market Traders would like a rent holiday for their stalls at Tommyfield. Could the Council tell me if they have granted rent holidays to occupiers of any of their other properties during the crisis?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that many small businesses, sole traders and independent traders were in contact from across the borough as they were struggling to survive at this very difficult time. The Council continued to lobby the Government for more financial support, but it continued to be very limited and the Council were currently working through the latest guidance from government with regard to the latest support packages for businesses for the second lockdown period which commences tomorrow morning. For consistency and fairness, the Council had not granted rent holidays to any occupiers of any corporate properties, and due to the financial support packages available from the Government to pay rents, etc., the Council would continue to issue rental invoices to all its tenants (not just market traders), with repayment plans being developed for those who were not able to make payments during the lockdown periods.
3. Councillor Taylor asked the following question:
“One of the most important roles of this Council, is our responsibility as corporate parents. Could the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, please tell us how Oldham Council fulfils its role as a corporate parent in ensuring that all young people in our care receive the best possible support as they prepare for adult life?”
Councillor Moores, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People responded that the Corporate Parenting Panel received regular performance data related to young people in and leaving care. The Children in Care Council attended panel meetings and provided valuable feedback. There was a dedicated Independent Reviewing Officer for Leaving Care who focussed on supporting young people transitioning from care into adulthood. There was a commitment to ensure that young people did not leave care until they were ready to do so. Young people could live with their foster carers post 18 under Staying Put. The number of young people who remained with their former foster carers had been high in Oldham in comparison to statistical neighbours. Looked After young people aged 16 – 18 had access to a specialist nurse. Oldham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had agreed to fund a pre-payment prescription for any care leaver up to the age of 25 years who was registered with a GP in Oldham. There was a dedicated looked after team within the Healthy Young Minds (HYM) service in Oldham. In terms of Employment, Education and Training (EET) outcomes for 16 – 18 year olds, Oldham was comparable to statistical neighbours. Oldham had a high number of its care leavers going to university. The Virtual School and Social Services had recently funded and developed a Youth Involvement Project which provided support to care leavers around their pre-employment skills. There was a new Speech and Language therapist role within the Virtual School focused on raising the educational attainment of children and young people looked after with additional needs as they transitioned to further education. Also, for care leavers aged 19 plus there was a dedicated work coach at Get Oldham Working. The participation of young people and care leavers was promoted. The Youth Service promoted the work of the Children in Care Council and Barrier Breakers. Oldham was successful in its application to the nationally recognised Coram Voice New Belongings Programme. Oldham had ‘Mind of My Own’ to help children, young people and care leavers to share their views and contribute towards planning for their future. There is also a Young Inspectors Scheme where care experienced young people could quality assure services that helped prepare young people for adulthood. The Cabinet Member also highlighted the Children’s Champion scheme.
4. Councillor H. Gloster asked the following question:
“Can the Cabinet Member please tell me how much money per year Oldham Council and its partners are receiving from the European Union, from funds such as the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund?”
Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Green responded that with regard to European Funding, the Council did not receive a fixed sum per year. Instead, funding was allocated to specific projects which spanned several financial years. For projects which were currently in progress, funding had been secured up to 31 March 2023 and totalled £2.568m. Projects currently supported included employment support projects funded by the European Social Fund. In addition, the European Regional Development Fund provided funding for projects which:
· Supported the community energy sector;
· Supported the community food sector;
· Developed new models for business support;
· Explored how local economies could transition to a circular business model, taking waste out of circulation; and
· Designed and piloted new carbon free heating systems for residential properties.
In addition, the Greater Manchester Growth Company was responsible for managing a series of business development and growth projects through the Greater Manchester Business Growth Hub. These are all funded by the current GM European Structural Investment Fund. Oldham Council benefited from a dedicated accounts manager at the Growth Hub that provided pathways for Oldham businesses to access support. The government had announced that the ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’ would replace EU Structural Investments Funds. Historically, these funds had formed a substantial component of spending on regional economic development in the UK, especially in the poorest regions. As yet there were no details regarding the overall amount of replacement funding available or how funding would be allocated between different parts of the UK and between different projects. The government had, however, highlighted that boosting productivity and tackling inequalities would be two key objectives of the new Shared Prosperity Fund. The Council would need to keep an eye on this and lobby the government.
5. Councillor Haque asked the following question:
“We all know that the pandemic had a major impact on the NHS’s ability to provide what were previously routine treatments and services. A particular concern was the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, can the Cabinet Member responsible for health, please tell us what have been put in place to try and prevent the risk of cancer going undiagnosed and where it is diagnosed lifesaving treatment being delayed?”
Councillor Chauhan, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care responded that there was a significant amount of work going on across Oldham to reduce delays in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The Cabinet Member was pleased to say that Oldham had taken significant steps and was overtarget for two-week diagnosis. Two week waiting services continued to do certification which assessed high risk patients to expedite their care and Oldham was already meeting targets in terms of treating and diagnosis of cancer and secondly cancer diagnostics were being prioritised over routine investigations which meant that when cancer was suspected, the patient would be given priority in terms of diagnosis and treatment compared with someone who could wait longer. Unfortunately, those steps had to be taken due to Covid. There were some issues with delays in some parts of diagnostics and that was why Greater Manchester was operating under a new model which involved the provision of cancer surgical hubs at the Christie and Rochdale which meant that those places had been ringfenced to provide diagnosis and treatment so it did not impact on capacity. Primary Care FIT testing had been introduced for all colorectal two-week referrals which ensured that all two-week wait referrals could be triaged more effectively in secondary care by flagging those patients who were presented as higher risk through FIT test results. Teledermatology had been introduced for dermatology referrals which allowed photos to be sent to specialists and as a result more cancers were being picked up and treated in a timely manner.
6. Councillor Leach asked the following question:
“I have read reports about a drastic cut to Government provision of laptops to schools – up to 80% in some cases. Such cuts will clearly hit Northern schools hardest – the schools which have been hardest hit by Covid restrictions. And they will hit the poorest children hardest, those whose education has been most severely disrupted and who live with no access to computers for home learning. Would the Cabinet Member for Education clarify the position in Oldham? Schools now have a legal duty to provide remote education for isolating children. Will there be many children and young people in Oldham who cannot access on-line teaching?”
Councillor Mushtaq, Cabinet Member for Education, responded that the DfE scheme for children and young people with social workers delivered devices to schools in July. Since then Oldham schools with Covid-19 cases where pupils have had to isolate had been able to order the additional devices. A number of schools had already received these, so the cuts in allocations would not impact on these schools. Oldham was part of a pilot for access to BT Wi-Fi where access continued until the end of December. If there were issues with access to devices and internet connectivity for families, then the Council would work with DfE and providers to resolve these. Oldham schools had provided learning activities for children and young people to complete at home throughout the pandemic. These had been a combination of online and hard copy resources. Where necessary, schools had posted or hand delivered hard copies to ensure the children and young people could still access the bespoke resources. The recent legal duty to provide remote education for isolating children still enabled this blended approach to continue to take place.
7. Councillor Hulme asked the following question:
“I welcome the wonderful way Oldham businesses, local residents, charities and the Council have come together to support Marcus Rashford’s campaign to ensure no child goes hungry, after the Government shamefully refused to provide Free School Meal vouchers during the October half term. Disgusting comments have been made defending this decision, with one Tory stating that this would mean ‘nationalising children’ another saying that any business who provides free meals should no longer receive Government support and one MP even saying that these vouchers would be going to ‘crack dens and brothels’. Boris Johnson has claimed that the Government has given local authorities funding in the form of grants to specifically pay for these meals. Please can the leader confirm if the Government conditions for the grant said that it could be used for free school meal vouchers at the October half term?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that no funding had been given directly to the Council specifically identified for school meals, however, the Council was concerned about the issue and provided funding for food support to activity providers where there were high levels of need. Oldham had spent more than £3,300 on food during October half term week working with partners who provided activities in school holidays and provided funding for healthy food alongside these activities. Some examples of the work included:
· 20 families in South Chadderton received food each day which included a breakfast pack, lunch pack and tea pack plus a cooking live session during the week with a virtual ‘super hero’ academy.
· Vulnerable youngsters attended a multi-sport camp at Hathershaw College and each had received a free packed lunch each day
The Council also liaised with a number of local businesses and organisations (for example Oldham Athletic, Mahdlo, the Muslim Society) who provided food and the Council helped signpost these via social media and the free school meals webfinder. The Council also provided £50K to support Oldham’s three foodbank centres (The Three Crowns, South Chadderton Methodist Church and the Salvation Army in Shaw).
8. Councillor Williamson asked the following question:
“Please can the Cabinet Member tell me how this Council will be responding to the Government new KickStart jobs scheme for under-25s given the record number of young people in this borough on benefits? Can the Cabinet Member tell me how many jobs will be established though this initiative by this Council and by Oldham Community Leisure, Unity and MioCare?”
Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that the KickStart scheme was similar to the successful Labour designed Future Jobs Fund, a scheme launched in 2009 as a response to the economic crash of 2008. The Council had maintained this scheme in some form since 2013 with 80% of citizens progressing into sustained employment. The KickStart scheme would be overseen by the GMCA KickStart Board to make sure the value of the programme was maximised and an ambitious target of 16,500 placements to be created had been set. DWP and the Oldham family were hoping to create 1600 – 2000 placements for Oldham’s young people. This would be managed by DWP, but the Council intended to fully play its part by creating internal opportunities and playing a key role in many external opportunities, including creation and increasing quality. A key concern was how the scheme would operate under lockdown. The scheme required each employer to commit to a minimum of 30 placements but the Council wanted these to be high quality good jobs which were now under pressure due to the national lockdown measures. As a consequence, Team Oldham (Council, MioCare, Unity, CCG) had committed to a minimum of 50 opportunities in the first phase. In addition, Get Oldham Working had registered as an ‘intermediary’ and was working with local employers to secure the minimum threshold of 30 placements across local employers. To date, the Get Oldham Working team had spoken to 75 Oldham based employers which equated to 200 opportunities, however, there was an issue that some of these were not good quality and would not be progressed by the Council. It was important that this was not just a ‘free labour’ scheme. The team was targeting key growth sectors such as health and social care, education (schools), digital and finance, manufacturing and construction. The Get Oldham Working team was therefore screening all opportunities and would enhance the scheme by providing in work support across both elements to support the kickstart workers in work and to progress them into sustained work. It was believed around 1,650 would be created over the next 13 months in Oldham through differing intermediaries regardless of roles but it was important to stick to those with high quality and meaningful opportunities.
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.
NOTE: Councillor Chauhan left the meeting during this item.