Agenda item

(time limit 15 minutes)

20^th September 2021

18^th October 2021

The Council was requested to note the minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on the undermentioned dates, to receive any questions on any items within the minutes from members of the Council who were not members of the Cabinet, and receive responses from Cabinet members. The minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 20th September 2021 and 18th October 2021 were

submitted.

Members raised the following questions:-

Councillor Lancaster asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 20/9/21, Item 7, p41 OPOL Interim Planning Paper

Following the different Greater Manchester-wide spatial development plans – the GMSF and now ‘Places for Everyone’ – there is understandably a great deal of mistrust amongst residents of our Borough about the Council’s willingness to stand up and protect our precious green spaces for future generations to enjoy.

Unfortunately, on our current course, this feeling of mistrust will only deepen further, with five of the present Other Protected Open Land (OPOL) sites set to be de-designated and not recommended for succession to the new Local Green Spaces (LGS) model.

Two of these sites are situated in Saddleworth, one of which at Rumbles Lane, Delph, being in my Saddleworth North ward. In both instances, the Council’s own assessment acknowledges that the land adds to our area’s attractiveness.

Can I please ask the Cabinet Member for Housing for reconsideration to be given to these sites with a view to them being designated under LGS?

I would also like to welcome the addition of a new site at Sholver Lane in the St. James’ ward, and ask as well that further efforts are invested into finding new sites across the Borough which would benefit from LGS protection.

Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing responded that potentially de-designating OPOL sites and potentially designating new local green spaces was something that would be dealt with in the new local plan for Oldham. The reason for moving from a locally-set designation like OPOL to designations such as local green space was intended to reinforce the protection from development, to try and give stronger protection to those areas designated as a local green space and the criteria for this were different. In identifying which sites should be designated as local green space, the Council had put forward an initial view based on the assessment of OPOL sites against green space criteria, but no final decision had yet been made. If Members or local residents wished to put forward further evidence why any OPOL sites should be designated as local green spaces, or why any other new sires should be considered for designation, the Council was listening to those suggestions as it prepared the new local plan. Some local residents had put forward responses to the issues and options and, if any Members wished to put forward more suggestions, they should do so. Green space was referable as the land would be better protected.

Councillor Woodvine asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 18/10/21, Item 8, page 51 Waste collection vehicles

I am pleased the Cabinet have chosen to replace the waste collection vehicles, but I’m surprised there are only five to cover the Borough.

In Saddleworth, and I suppose the Borough, we do have an ageing population and as such increasing single households and houses with older couples only.

For these people three weekly collections are more than enough, however, I have had concerns brought to me by families that fortnightly collections would be better.

In a perfect world we would have weekly collections although with Budgetary constraints I realise this isn’t possible in a Borough this size.

Some of those families are happy, however, to take their own waste to the tip - saving the Council money.

But the restrictions on the tip mean they cannot go as often as they may need to, especially if they drive pick-ups for domestic purposes.

Therefore, did the Cabinet consider that reducing restrictions on the tip may mean people are happier to dispose of their own waste, and did they consider increasing the number of collection vehicles to in turn increase collection frequency?

Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods replied that 5 vehicles were not enough to cover a borough of Oldham’s size. Oldham Council operated a fleet of over 25 waste collection vehicles.

The procurement process of new vehicles was staggered to reduce the financial requirement and risk to the service of replacing all the vehicles at the same time.

The 3-weekly collections implemented over four years ago had delivered savings in the millions towards the cost of disposing of general rubbish and improved recycling performance as well.

Although restrictions had been made to the number of visits to the tip these were in line with restrictions which had been imposed across the UK. Each household could visit the tip once every week and reduced visits only applied to larger vehicles.

At this time there were no considerations being made to increase the domestic collection frequencies or limit any further the restriction around the tips.

Councillor C Gloster asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 20/9/21 Item 6, p41

Alexandra Park Depot Contract – Construction Contract and final business case approval

Whilst broadly welcoming the reconstruction of the Alexandra Park Depot which should provide a better and more efficient service to the communities of The Borough. This project received Cabinet approval almost 12 months ago however the construction phase has only just begun. Since approval, costs in the building trade have spiralled. Can the cabinet member assure us that this project will be completed on time and within the budget set for this project?

Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and Low Carbon replied that in January this year, Cabinet approved the scope of the project and the commencement of the contractor procurement process. Following the completion of the designs and a robust tender process, the preferred contractor submitted an initial cost on 7th July 2021.

This was followed by a detailed tender negotiation to ensure price certainty and a fixed price lump sum, culminating in Cabinet approval on 20th September 2021. The final contract sum was signed off by the Chair of CIPB on 3rd November 2021 and included approval for an adjustment in the contractor’s costs recognising material inflation.

Since then, the contractor has commenced work on site on 6th December 2021 and, as with other Council capital projects, comprehensive contract management and change control processes were in place to manage the project as it progressed.

These processes would be managed by an experienced team of professionals who would monitor the contract and the work. he was hopeful that the contract would be delivered on budget and on time.

Councillor Murphy asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 20/9/21, Item 7, p41 OPOL Interim Planning Paper

I note that finally, we have something that resembles Oldham’s stance on Other Protected Open Land (OPOL), which to note the Liberal Democrats have been asking for a long time.

If a proper OPOL policy was in date when planning applications like Cowlishaw and Denbigh Drive were submitted, then residents would have or would be in a better position to keep the area where they live as it is.

The Administration has used the lack of policy as a backdoor way to sneak in housing numbers to achieve Tory housing targets.

Cabinet resolved that “the Other Protected Open Land Interim Planning Paper be adopted. The Interim Planning Paper would be used as a material consideration to assess the significance of each Other Protected Open Land.”

Could I ask the Cabinet member how exactly will the Council “assess the significance of each Other Protected Open Land”?

And would the Cabinet Member please explain why we are behind other local authorities and do not have a proper OPOL policy and why did we not update it sooner?

Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing responded that the Council had, and had always had since 2011, a “proper” policy on Other Protected Open Land (OPOL) in the form of Policy 22 of the adopted Joint Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD. The question fails to acknowledge that Local Plan policies can be rendered out of date under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework where the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The only way to bring that policy up to date was to demonstrate either a five-year supply or to adopt an entirely new policy through a review of the Local Plan.

Where the Council did not have a five year housing land supply, and so policies like that for OPOL were considered “out of date”, under national planning policy, the weight that the Council could give to those policies in decision-making on planning applications was reduced, and the weight given to the fact that an application would provide much-needed new housing was given greater weight. This meant the Council was less able to resist applications for housing development on OPOL sites, such as that referred to at Cowlishaw.  (It should be noted that the application for Denbigh Drive had not yet been determined).

The Interim Planning Paper, was designed to be used as a “material consideration” in determining planning applications. A material consideration was any matter which, while possibly not adopted policy, was relevant to consider in deciding planning applications. The Interim Planning Paper set out how the OPOL sites in the borough met Local Green Space criteria – a national designation that would provide stronger protection to such sites. 

The suggestion that the Council “are behind other local authorities and do not have a proper OPOL policy and why did we not update it sooner?”, this was entirely misleading. We could not be “behind other local authorities” in relation to an OPOL policy, as it was a locally-set policy unique to Oldham.  As already said, the Council had a “proper” OPOL policy. Updating it to use a Local Green Space designation instead could only be done through adopting a new Local Plan. The Council were already preparing said new Local Plan, as councillors were aware.

Councillor Williamson asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 20/9/21, Item 8, page 42 Education Contributions Interim Planning Paper

This paper focuses solely on education contributions. Could the Cabinet member responsible please tell me why there has not been a matching Health Contributions Interim Planning Paper, particularly when there is considerable pressure to provide new healthcare facilities in a number of wards across the borough?

Councillor Roberts, Cabinet Member for Housing, replied that it had been standard practice in Oldham for some time to collect contributions towards education improvements from a new development, where it would create a need for additional school places in the local area. The latest Education Contributions Paper was an update to the existing formula for calculating those contributions. Where a new development was adding significantly to the burden of existing health infrastructure it was also possible to ask for a health contribution

However, the majority of new developments in the borough struggled to be viable, due to the low market values for housing in many areas and the costs of developing many sites in the borough. This meant that many developments simply could not afford to make contributions secured towards provision of all of things asked for and remain viable. All too often one or more of these policy requirements was reduced or removed entirely from a development. Asking for a health contribution in addition would make this situation worse.

Nonetheless the overall policy on developer contribution would be reviewed as part of the Local Plan and if necessary a Health Contributions policy would be developed.

Councillor Hamblett asked the following question in relation to Cabinet 20/9/21 Item 11, p44 GM Streets for all Strategy

To the relevant cabinet member: Will this mean our footpaths will finally be sorted and not be lumpy for the future?

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economic and Social Reform responded that Streets for All did not offer specific funding for highway repairs and the Council had invested to improve roads and footpaths. It was also working hard to maximise government funding for highways improvements.

At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 20^th September 2021 and 18^th October 2021 be noted.

2.    The questions and responses provided be noted.