Agenda item

(time limit 30 minutes)

Councillor Sheldon, Leader of the Conservative Group

 

Question 1: Oldham Coliseum

It was noted that the Oldham Coliseum theatre closed at the end of March 2023 but according to a recently published independent report £137,000 could have saved it from closure. The Council has authorised £1 million of grant funding recently to preserve activities at Boundary Park yet has provided nothing for Oldham Coliseum. The new theatre building is smaller, with a reduced seating capacity and will lack the necessary atmosphere. Will the Leader of the Council authorise expenditure in the sum of £137,000 to, at least temporarily, keep the Coliseum theatre open?

 

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council, replied that it wasn’t a decision of the Council that led to the closure of the Oldham Coliseum theatre. The building would have cost too much to properly repaired and maintained. The Council was not able to authorise additional funding but is engaged in ongoing discussions, with the Coliseum’s management committee regarding future plans.

 

Question 2: Government Funding

Councillor Sheldon commented on additional funding that the Council had received, from the Conservative Government to finance projects in the Oldham Borough. The additional funding included approximately £6 million for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) services and £1.5 million for various traffic and transport initiatives. Councillor Sheldon, therefore, asked if the leader of the Council would join him in welcoming the additional funding, that the Council has received, which will benefit the local community.

 

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council, replied that she did indeed welcome the additional funding that the Borough of Oldham had recently received from the Government but she also advised that the Council’s services had been underfunded by the Government over a number of years.

 

Councillor Sykes, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group

Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor,

I want to begin by paying tribute to all the pupils across Oldham Borough who have received their A Levels, T Levels, B Tecs, GCSEs and other qualifications recently. 
Mr Deputy Mayor, as a Council, we have MUCH work to do when it comes to education in our Borough. 
The latest OFSTED inspections across some of our secondary schools paint a very mixed picture. 

For far too many people in Oldham, there just isn’t the option of sending your children to a high performing school.

Too many secondary schools are rated as inadequate or in need of improvement. 

The impact of the pandemic years is still keenly felt across the schooling system and too little is understood about the impact that these years of disruption have had on pupil attainment. 
School absences are spiralling out of control. 

Persistent absences have risen by more than 80% in the last four years.  The damage that this missed classroom time is doing to the future life chances of our next generation cannot be overstated. 
This is unacceptable.  And it should be the top priority of this Council to help put it right.
Last month I wrote to the Director of Children’s services following the mixed OFSTED findings, asking him to outline the Council’s strategic response. 
Since then, we have had results day and another set of OFSTED findings, this time dealing with SEND provision in the Borough. 

The outcome?  Widespread systemic failings which must be urgently addressed. 
So will the Leader outline her own administrations’ plan to tackle these important issues and play a leading role in delivering the first-rate Education offer that Oldham deserves. 

 Or is the strategy just to wait for handouts from the great and the good at Eton College?

 

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council, replied that not schools in the Borough were the responsibility of Oldham Council but the Council’s Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, Councillor Ali, was working closely with the Leader in lobbying the Government for additional funding that would help alleviate some of the issues raised in the question and would help to produce better educational outcomes for young people in Oldham.

 

Councillor Hince, Leader of the Independent Group

The findings of a recent ‘OFSTED report following a SEND inspection into schools in the Oldham Borough had found that the Council was failing pupils in terms of their educational prospects’. He asked who, within the Council, would take responsibility and apologise for these failings in Oldham’s schools?’ 

 

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council, replied that whilst it was unfair to attack Council Officers, she did share some of his concerns regarding the results of the inspection. The Council was doing all that it could to improve educational performances for all children.

 

Councillor Hobin, Leader of the Failsworth Independent Party

With reference to the Borough’s ‘Don’t Trash Oldham’ campaign, Councillor Hobin asked if rules regarding the size of vehicles that could access the council’s tips and recycling facilities could be relaxed. He asked if by not permitting larger and wider vehicles access to these facilities ‘was it not encouraging fly-tipping’?

 

Councillor Shah, Leader of the Council, undertook to investigate the issues raised by Councillor Hobin.

 

Question from Councillor Davis

Could the member responsible for the war memorial in the town centre please look into the situation where motor vehicles are parking on the cobbled area it appears to be from the property which used to be the former Greaves Arms they are taking the bollards down on the road and leaning them on the war memorial!

This is a total lack of respect to people who paid the ultimate price.

 

Councillor Goodwin, Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods replied The area where vehicles are parking is an unadopted highway.   However, the vehicles do cross and remove bollards from a part of the highway that is adopted.  We have recently been made aware of bollards being removed and placed against the memorial so vehicles can access this ‘parking space’.

Officers from the Corporate Landlord team will be working with local businesses and users of the area to ensure that where bollards are removed, they are placed in a safe area and away from the memorial.

 

Question from Councillor Holly Harrison

Coercive control is on the rise; in fact, according to the ONS (25th November 2022) significantly so. There were 41, 626 offences of coercive control recorded, in England and Wales in the year ending March 2022. This is up from 33,954 the year before and 24,856 the year before that.

In September 2022, Refuge launched their, 'Make It Mandatory Campaign' - a campaign to ensure that 16- to 19-year-old receive education on domestic abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour. It is my personal belief that this is not early enough, but in any event, they found that less than half of 16- to 19-year-old are receiving this education.

Please can the cabinet member for education provide the statistics on the number of 16- to 19-year-olds who receive this education in Oldham. A breakdown of each educational facility would be great too.

 

Councillor Ali, Cabinet member for Education and Skills replied

The Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019, made under sections 34 and 35 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, make Relationships Education compulsory for all pupils receiving primary education and Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) compulsory for all pupils receiving secondary education.  Therefore, the schools in Oldham that have a sixth form attached (Bluecoat, Crompton House and North Chadderton) are statutorily obliged to deliver this education and do so as part of their personal development curriculums.  

Oldham College and Oldham Sixth Form College deliver this education as part of their contextualised safeguarding curriculum, or tutorial curriculum, which is delivered to all students. In addition to the standard curriculum, any students experiencing, or perpetrating abuse is provided with additional education and support on a 1 – 1 basis. 

The Oldham Safeguarding Children Partnership training officer delivers online safety and healthy relationships assemblies to primary, secondary and FE students which include elements of coercive control. In the last term she delivered sessions to over 7,500 students.

The secondary assembly offer for the 2023/24 academic year has been refreshed and will include a focus on teenage relationship abuse and adolescent stalking and harassment. This reflects issues requested by schools.

During the last academic year, the Partnership also launched a high quality Happy and Safe Curriculum resource for primary schools. This is available on the Partnership website and includes a lot of lessons that lay the foundation of understanding about coercive and controlling behaviour. Linked to this, as part of the 2023 White Ribbon fortnight of action, a conference is being held with young people on 29^th November to develop peer leadership around promoting healthy and respectful relationships.

 

Question from Councillor Byrne

My question is again about Road Speed Limits.

During COVID we were able on a National Basis to reduce Town and village centres to 20MPH.

Whilst not popular at first more and more 20MPH have been requested and implemented.

I was told some 4 years ago by a previous Senior Highways Officer that there would be a study of all the speed limits on all the road in the borough.

This never took place as far as I am aware and many roads in the Saddleworth wards, without footpaths, are still at the upper end of the National limit of 50 mph and are used in excess of these speed limits.

I have even presented Petitions to lower the speed limits in my Ward.

I understand that more 20mph area are to be proposed but when can I expect a thorough study of other limits than 20mph.

 

Councillor Goodwin, Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods replied

The previous speed limit review for all 10 Manchester Borough’s was led by TfGM. This review led to the creation of the policy for setting speed limits, which is in line with National Policy. This is to ensure that there is a constant approach in setting limits. Currently, speed limits are set based on collision data and in agreement with Greater Manchester Police.

The TfGM led Road Danger Reduction Group are currently re-assessing the speed limit policy and the implementation of lower speed limits in the light of the ever-increasing use of the highway by non-motorised users.

The existing Temporary 20-mph speed limits introduced in the Saddleworth Villages were done so using temporary powers, granted by Central Government, during the Covid Pandemic. These powers expired in April 2022.

There has been a long-standing request for a 20-mph limit in villages - data shows that the signs have resulted in a reduction in speeds. However, this has not led to full compliance.

As and when funding becomes available, Oldham Council highways are changing covid era temporary measures to permanent physical restrictions.  Linked to this, funding has been confirmed for a traffic calming and permanent 20-mph limit within the Uppermill and Dobcross areas which will be consulted upon in the next couple of months.

It should be noted that Greater Manchester Police don’t support the introduction of permanent 20-mph speed limits without physical measures (traffic calming) to make them self-enforcing.

 

Question from Councillor Kenyon

Every ward in the Oldham Borough has been affected by the telecommunication mast installations by IX telecom.

Whilst these street work poles deliver a choice of mobile connectivity providers to residents and businesses, this comes at a cost to our landscape. I’d be surprised if there was a councillor in this room who hadn’t been contacted by a resident complaining about the eyesore of one of these new masts plonked outside their home with no consultation.

But what have Oldham Council done so far – very little apart apparently apart from a meeting with IX wireless and a trial supposedly starting in Chadderton soon. What has been the outcome of this trial? Nothing so far as nothing as been communicated to Councillors and residents.

One of the key fundamental functions of the planning requirements is that all operators are required to explore site-sharing opportunities under the terms of their licences. What evidence does the Council have from Telecommunication operators that this has been done for every proposed new mast or monopole location? If they have provided evidence, who, as a technical expert, has reviewed their justification. Which have been challenged, questioned or refused as a result?

The electronic communications code is set out in Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003 and it is a set of rights that are designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of electronic communications networks. The operators and their contractors, such as IX, are not working illegally, so if we want to make a change to their procedures and the planning requirements, this means a change to the code and Act which would need to be brought before Parliament.

Residents, Councillors and local Councils cannot make any change unless this is done.

So, my question to the cabinet member is, have they written to the relevant Member of Parliament or Select Committee requesting that this code or Act is changed as a result of the detrimental affect these unsightly structures are having to our town and villages? And if so, when?

 

Councillor Taylor, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Housing and Licensing relied, thank you for your question. The Council is aware of proposals by IX Wireless to roll out their infrastructure in the borough utilising rights available to them through national planning legislation meaning that some of it does not require approval from the Local Planning Authority.  These are known as permitted development rights. 

However, where masts are proposed to be erected under these rights, the operator must first obtain what is known as ‘Prior Approval’ from the Local Planning Authority.  This requires them to make an application and the Local Planning Authority will then need to determine on a case-by-case basis whether their siting and appearance is acceptable or not.  No other matters can be considered under this process. 

Whilst such legislation exists the Council must accept that operators such as IX Wireless have rights to install their infrastructure, albeit subject to compliance with any conditions contained within them.  Council officers have ensured that IX Wireless are aware of these requirements. 

I am aware that some equipment has been installed in the form of poles to support wires in the Chadderton area.  These have been assessed by officers and fall within the provision of permitted development rights.  Where this is the case, they do not require approval from the Local Planning Authority. 

Former Councillor Chadderton has written to the Secretary of State raising concerns about the permitted development rights afforded to electronic communication operators.  I too share these concerns. 

In respect of the wider requirement for telecommunication code operators to adhere to their codes of practice, which includes a requirement to share sites where possible, I understand this is a matter for OFCOM.