Agenda item

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1: Provision of Free School Travel for all Children in Temporary Accommodation

To be Moved by Councillor Akhtar

To be Seconded by Councillor Chowhan

 

1.    Reason for Motion

To ensure that children living in temporary accommodation (TA) in Oldham are not disadvantaged by their housing situation and can maintain stability in education.

 

“No child should be punished for their family’s housing situation”.

 

2.    Background (Latest Facts)

 

  Oldham picture

•  At 31 March 2025, there were 562 households in temporary accommodation in Oldham (Table TA4).

•  In Q1 2025 (Jan–Mar) there were 310 households with children (748 Children between 0-18) in TA (most recently published government data).

•  TA is intended to be short-term (around six weeks), but Oldham data show many households remain beyond 6 months across B&B and nightly-paid placements.

•  Composition (Oldham, 31 Mar 2025):

o B&B: 173 households (incl. cases over 6 months).

o Nightly paid, self-contained: 259 households (many 6–12 months and 1–2 years).

o Hostels: 5 | Private sector leased: 87 | LA/HA stock: 38.

 

National/GM context

•  England total: 131,140 households in TA (31 Mar 2025).

•  Law already provides free school travel if:

a.     >2 miles (under 8) or >3 miles (8+), or

b.    no safe walking route, or

c.    child cannot walk due to SEND/disability/mobility needs.

•  Locally, children with an EHC Plan are supported from a SEN perspective and continue to receive travel assistance where already in place.

•  GM operating practice: when a family is in paid nightly TA in another GM borough, they can apply for bus passes from the host borough, but only if they meet standard distance criteria—leaving a gap for many placed nearer than the mileage thresholds yet far from their original school.

 

Political momentum: The Manchester Evening News campaign calls for free bus passes for children in TA living >30 minutes’ walk from school. As of 25 Aug 2025, six GM MPs publicly back the campaign. No GM local authority has yet adopted a borough-wide concession.

 

Why discretionary action is needed

Children rehoused (often suddenly) can face long, complex, and costly journeys to their existing school—leading to lateness, absence, and stress.

The statutory mileage rules do not cover many TA cases; discretionary support is therefore required to protect educational continuity.

 

3.    Current Position in Oldham

Oldham complies with national transport duties and supports pupils eligible under distance/safety/SEND criteria. Children in TA who fall short of mileage thresholds (or are rehoused across GM) face a policy gap. Acting now would make Oldham the first GM authority to introduce a dedicated concession for children in TA.

 

4.     Proposal

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To extend free school travel (bus pass or taxi, as appropriate) to all school-aged children living in TA in Oldham, irrespective of statutory mileage thresholds.

 

2. To instruct officers in Children’s Services, Education and Transport to:

a. Define eligibility based on verified TA status (including placements within and across GM).

b. Develop delivery models (bus passes, pre-approved taxi contracts, or hybrid models), with clear safeguarding standards.

c. Assess financial implications and identify funding sources (e.g. Homelessness Prevention funding; partnership with TfGM and operators; targeted charitable/hardship support).

 

3.    To report back to Cabinet within 12 weeks with:

a.    A recommended delivery model.

b.    Estimated budget and funding options.

c.     An implementation timetable aiming to begin before the next academic term.

 

4.    To ensure the scheme embeds safeguarding, equality and inclusion, and aligns with existing SEND/EHC travel assistance so support is continuous where already in place.

 

5.    Additional resolution – The Council further resolves to:

a.    Call on Oldham’s two Members of Parliament to publicly support the campaign for free school travel for children in TA across Greater Manchester.

b.    Urge the Mayor of Greater Manchester to introduce a region0wide scheme that guarantees free transport for children in TA, ensuring no child is penalised for their families housing situation.

 

6.    Expected Outcomes

a.    Improved attendance and punctuality for children in TA.

b.    Educational continuity and wellbeing during periods of acute housing instability.

c.     Oldham leadership in closing a known policy gap ahead of GM peers.

 

7.    Recommendation

That Oldham Council supports this motion, becoming the first authority in Greater Manchester to guarantee free school travel for children in temporary accommodation, setting a clear and compassionate standard for others to follow.

 

Motion 2: Oldham Borough deserves a state-of-the-art police station which must include a custody suite

To be Moved by Councillor Al-Hamdani

To be Seconded by Councillor Marland

 

The Council notes that:

·   With the closure of custody suites at both Oldham and Chadderton, Oldham Borough currently has no dedicated facilities open to process detainees.

·   Additional services lost include the Magistrates Court, County Court, and police stations in Failsworth, Chadderton and Royton, with other facilities having no face-to-face service, and access to other sites removed, such as in Shaw.

·   Current processes mean that officers are required to process detainees at Tameside, which means additional travel time of over an hour for each arrest.

·   The current police station in Oldham has been beyond its service life for a number of years, with the current chief constable in 2021 describing the comparing the building to those in the old East Germany.

·   The Chief Constable also noted that: “custody facilities being tethered to the right operating base is really important”.

 

The Council further notes the most recent report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) on custody provision in Manchester, including that:

·   Leadership for custody provision isn’t strong enough to make sure the service is provided well and achieves appropriate outcomes for detainees. There is limited prioritisation of custody by senior officers or engagement in how custody is provided. There hasn’t been enough improvement since our previous inspection. Significant concerns remain.

·   The position is exacerbated by a large increase in the number of detainees entering custody. This makes it difficult for staff to fulfil all their duties and meet detainees’ needs.

·   The force should deal with detainees promptly and minimise the time they spend in custody by - booking detainees into custody promptly and prioritising them appropriately, especially children and those who are vulnerable; …

 

And finally, the Council notes that:

·         Oldham Council has been in discussions with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Police for a number of years over a new site for a police station, with no location having currently been identified.

·         Police and Crime Commissioner Kate Green has acknowledged in a written response to enquiries from the Liberal Democrats that: “there is no immediate intention to locate a custody suite in Oldham, but it may be sensible to future-proof the design of the site to enable this in future if needed”.

 

Therefore, the Council resolves:

1.    To formally note its position that a new Police Station in Oldham should include appropriate custody provision.

2.    Set a target to agree a location for a new police station in Oldham within the next six months. If a location is not agreed within that timescale, to provide a report to the appropriate scrutiny committee detailing:

a.    The requirements for any location for a new police station.

b.    Any sites which have been discussed and the reasons why they have not been deemed suitable.

c.    How the Council proposes to identify and bring forward future sites that meet the requirements for a police station in Oldham.

 

Motion 3: The Old Library: An Anti-Democratic Debacle

To be Moved by Councillor Woodvine

To be Seconded by Councillor Byrne

 

On 16^th August 2025 the Leader of Oldham Council, Councillor Arooj Shah, announced she had unilaterally decided to rename the Old Library on Union Street the ‘J. R. Clynes Building’ to the bemusement of many residents of Oldham Borough.

 

This follows a £30+ million renovation project, yet the Council Tax paying public of Oldham were not given an opportunity to express their preference on the title that this public building would take.

 

The Conservative Group on Oldham Council believe this is not only anti-democratic but also shameful.

 

Therefore, this Council notes:

 

·         That no public consultation took place in the naming process of the Old Library building.

·         That the Leader of the Council shamefully and willfully excluded democratically elected Councillors and the taxpaying public from the naming process.

·         That the first decision to come out of the Borough’s new Council Chambers is an anti-democratic diktat by Councillor Arooj Shah, which has no popular consent from the public.

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To reveal all information, including associated costs, in relation to the naming process of the Old Library.

2.    To review the naming process and suitability of ‘J. R. Clynes’ as the title of the building.

3.    To consult the wider body of democratically elected Members of Oldham Council from across the Borough.

4.    To present a suitable short list of names to the public of Oldham to give them a voice in the naming process of a building which should be the Borough’s beating heart of democracy.

Motion 1: Provision of Free School Travel for all Children in Temporary Accommodation

Moved by Councillor Akhtar

Seconded by Councillor Chowhan

 

1.    Reason for Motion

To ensure that children living in temporary accommodation (TA) in Oldham are not disadvantaged by their housing situation and can maintain stability in education.

 

“No child should be punished for their family’s housing situation”.

 

2.    Background (Latest Facts)

 

  Oldham picture

•   At 31 March 2025, there were 562 households in temporary accommodation in Oldham (Table TA4).

•   In Q1 2025 (Jan–Mar) there were 310 households with children (748 Children between 0-18) in TA (most recently published government data).

•   TA is intended to be short-term (around six weeks), but Oldham data show many households remain beyond 6 months across B&B and nightly-paid placements.

•   Composition (Oldham, 31 Mar 2025):

o B&B: 173 households (incl. cases over 6 months).

o Nightly paid, self-contained: 259 households (many 6–12 months and 1–2 years).

o Hostels: 5 | Private sector leased: 87 | LA/HA stock: 38.

 

National/GM context

•   England total: 131,140 households in TA (31 Mar 2025).

•   Law already provides free school travel if:

a.     >2 miles (under 8) or >3 miles (8+), or

b.    no safe walking route, or

c.     child cannot walk due to SEND/disability/mobility needs.

•   Locally, children with an EHC Plan are supported from a SEN perspective and continue to receive travel assistance where already in place.

•   GM operating practice: when a family is in paid nightly TA in another GM borough, they can apply for bus passes from the host borough, but only if they meet standard distance criteria—leaving a gap for many placed nearer than the mileage thresholds yet far from their original school.

 

Political momentum: The Manchester Evening News campaign calls for free bus passes for children in TA living >30 minutes’ walk from school. As of 25 Aug 2025, six GM MPs publicly back the campaign. No GM local authority has yet adopted a borough-wide concession.

 

Why discretionary action is needed

Children rehoused (often suddenly) can face long, complex, and costly journeys to their existing school—leading to lateness, absence, and stress.

The statutory mileage rules do not cover many TA cases; discretionary support is therefore required to protect educational continuity.

 

3.    Current Position in Oldham

Oldham complies with national transport duties and supports pupils eligible under distance/safety/SEND criteria. Children in TA who fall short of mileage thresholds (or are rehoused across GM) face a policy gap. Acting now would make Oldham the first GM authority to introduce a dedicated concession for children in TA.

 

4.     Proposal

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To extend free school travel (bus pass or taxi, as appropriate) to all school-aged children living in TA in Oldham, irrespective of statutory mileage thresholds.

 

2. To instruct officers in Children’s Services, Education and Transport to:

a. Define eligibility based on verified TA status (including placements within and across GM).

b. Develop delivery models (bus passes, pre-approved taxi contracts, or hybrid models), with clear safeguarding standards.

c. Assess financial implications and identify funding sources (e.g. Homelessness Prevention funding; partnership with TfGM and operators; targeted charitable/hardship support).

 

3.    To report back to Cabinet within 12 weeks with:

a.     A recommended delivery model.

b.     Estimated budget and funding options.

c.     An implementation timetable aiming to begin before the next academic term.

 

4.    To ensure the scheme embeds safeguarding, equality and inclusion, and aligns with existing SEND/EHC travel assistance so support is continuous where already in place.

 

5.    Additional resolution – The Council further resolves to:

a.     Call on Oldham’s two Members of Parliament to publicly support the campaign for free school travel for children in TA across Greater Manchester.

b.     Urge the Mayor of Greater Manchester to introduce a region0wide scheme that guarantees free transport for children in TA, ensuring no child is penalised for their families housing situation.

 

6.    Expected Outcomes

a.     Improved attendance and punctuality for children in TA.

b.     Educational continuity and wellbeing during periods of acute housing instability.

c.     Oldham leadership in closing a known policy gap ahead of GM peers.

 

7.    Recommendation

That Oldham Council supports this motion, becoming the first authority in Greater Manchester to guarantee free school travel for children in temporary accommodation, setting a clear and compassionate standard for others to follow.

 

AMENDMENT 1

Councillor Ghafoor MOVED and Councillor Wahid SECONDED the following AMENDMENT

 

1. Reason for Motion

To ensure that children living in temporary accommodation (TA) in Oldham are not disadvantaged by their housing situation and can maintain stability in education.
“No child should be punished for their family’s housing situation.”

2. Background (Latest Facts)

Oldham picture

·   At31 March 2025, there were 562 households in temporary accommodation in Oldham (Table TA4).

·   In Q1 2025 (Jan–Mar) there were 310 households with children (748 children aged 0–18) in TA (most recently published government data).

·   TA is intended to be short-term (around six weeks), but Oldham data show many households remain beyond 6 months across B&B and nightly-paid placements.

·   Composition (Oldham, 31 Mar 2025):

o   B&B: 173 households (includes cases >6 months).

o   Nightly paid, self-contained: 259 households (many 6–12 months and 1–2 years).

o   Hostels: 5 | Private sector leased: 87 | LA/HA stock: 38.

National/GM context

·   England total: 131,140 households in TA (31 Mar 2025).

·   Statutory free school travel where:

o   >2 miles (under 8) or >3 miles (8+), or

o   no safe walking route, or

o   SEND/disability/mobility prevents walking.

·   Locally, children with an EHC Plan are supported from a SEN perspective and continue to receive travel assistance where already in place.

·   GM practice: families in paid nightly TA in another GM borough may apply for bus passes from the host borough, but only if they meet standard distance criteria—leaving a gap for many placed nearer than mileage thresholds yet far from their original school.

·   Political momentum: the Manchester Evening News campaign calls for free bus passes for children in TA >30 minutes’ walk from school. As of 25 Aug 2025, six GM MPs publicly back the campaign. No GM local authority has yet adopted a borough-wide concession.

Why discretionary action is needed
Children rehoused (often suddenly) can face long, complex and costly journeys to their existing school—leading to lateness, absence and stress. The statutory mileage rules do not cover many TA cases; discretionary support is therefore required to protect educational continuity.

3. Current Position in Oldham

Oldham complies with national transport duties and supports pupils eligible under distance/safety/SEND criteria. Children in TA who fall short of mileage thresholds (or are rehoused across GM) face a policy gap. Acting now would make Oldham the first GM authority to introduce a dedicated concession for children in TA.

4. Proposal (Re-ordered to comply with Budget & Policy Framework)

This Council resolves:

1.    To request the Cabinet to bring forward, within 12 weeks, a report setting out options to improve access to school for children in TA, including (but not limited to):

o   The feasibility of extending free school travel (bus pass and/or taxi) to children in TA irrespective of mileage thresholds;

o   Eligibility definitions based on verified TA status (including placements within and across GM);

o   Delivery models (bus passes, pre-approved taxi contracts, or hybrid), with clear safeguarding standards;

o   Legal, financial and equality implications (including Section 149 Equality Act assessment);

o   Funding options (e.g. Homelessness Prevention funding, partnership with TfGM and operators, and targeted charitable/hardship support);

o   An implementation timetable (including scope for a time-limited pilot).

2.    That no decision to implement any new concession is taken until Cabinet (or Council where required) has considered the report and identified funding in line with the Financial Procedure Rules and the agreed budget/MTFP (or approved virement/other lawful funding mechanism).

3.    Subject to such approval and funding being identified, to proceed to implement the preferred option, ensuring alignment with existing SEND/EHC travel assistance so support is continuous where already in place.

5. Additional Resolution

This Council further resolves to:

·   Call on Oldham’s two Members of Parliament to publicly support the campaign for free school travel for children in TA across Greater Manchester; and

·   Urge the Mayor of Greater Manchester to introduce a region-wide scheme that guarantees free transport for children in TA, ensuring no child is penalised for their family’s housing situation.

6. Expected Outcomes

·   Improved attendance and punctuality for children in TA.

·   Educational continuity and wellbeing during periods of acute housing instability.

·   Oldham leadership in closing a known policy gap ahead of GM peers.

7. Recommendation

That Council adopts this amended motion and refers it to Cabinet for the options report and subsequent decision in line with budgetary and constitutional requirements.

 

On being put to the VOTE, AMENDMENT 1 was CARRIED (and became the substantive Motion).

 

AMENDMENT 2

 

Councillor Taylor the MOVER of AMENDMENT 2 addressed Council outlining the reasons why AMENDMENT 2 should be withdrawn.

 

On being put to the VOTE the MOTION was CARRIED and AMENDMENT 2 was withdrawn

 

On being put to the VOTE, the MOTION, as AMENDED (by AMENDMENT 1), was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To request the Cabinet to bring forward, within 12 weeks, a report setting out options to improve access to school for children in TA, including (but not limited to):

o   The feasibility of extending free school travel (bus pass and/or taxi) to children in TA irrespective of mileage thresholds;

o   Eligibility definitions based on verified TA status (including placements within and across GM);

o   Delivery models (bus passes, pre-approved taxi contracts, or hybrid), with clear safeguarding standards;

o   Legal, financial and equality implications (including Section 149 Equality Act assessment);

o   Funding options (e.g. Homelessness Prevention funding, partnership with TfGM and operators, and targeted charitable/hardship support);

o   An implementation timetable (including scope for a time-limited pilot).

2.    That no decision to implement any new concession is taken until Cabinet (or Council where required) has considered the report and identified funding in line with the Financial Procedure Rules and the agreed budget/MTFP (or approved virement/other lawful funding mechanism).

3.    Subject to such approval and funding being identified, to proceed to implement the preferred option, ensuring alignment with existing SEND/EHC travel assistance so support is continuous where already in place.

4.    That Council adopts this amended motion and refers it to Cabinet for the options report and subsequent decision in line with budgetary and constitutional requirements.

 

Motion 2: Oldham Borough deserves a state-of-the-art police station which must include a custody suite

Moved by Councillor Al-Hamdani

Seconded by Councillor Marland

 

The Council notes that:

·  With the closure of custody suites at both Oldham and Chadderton, Oldham Borough currently has no dedicated facilities open to process detainees.

·  Additional services lost include the Magistrates Court, County Court, and police stations in Failsworth, Chadderton and Royton, with other facilities having no face-to-face service, and access to other sites removed, such as in Shaw.

·  Current processes mean that officers are required to process detainees at Tameside, which means additional travel time of over an hour for each arrest.

·  The current police station in Oldham has been beyond its service life for a number of years, with the current chief constable in 2021 describing the comparing the building to those in the old East Germany.

·  The Chief Constable also noted that: “custody facilities being tethered to the right operating base is really important”.

 

The Council further notes the most recent report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) on custody provision in Manchester, including that:

·       Leadership for custody provision isn’t strong enough to make sure the service is provided well and achieves appropriate outcomes for detainees. There is limited prioritisation of custody by senior officers or engagement in how custody is provided. There hasn’t been enough improvement since our previous inspection. Significant concerns remain.

·       The position is exacerbated by a large increase in the number of detainees entering custody. This makes it difficult for staff to fulfil all their duties and meet detainees’ needs.

·       The force should deal with detainees promptly and minimise the time they spend in custody by - booking detainees into custody promptly and prioritising them appropriately, especially children and those who are vulnerable; … and finally, the Council notes that:

·       Oldham Council has been in discussions with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Police for a number of years over a new site for a police station, with no location having currently been identified.

·       Police and Crime Commissioner Kate Green has acknowledged in a written response to enquiries from the Liberal Democrats that: “there is no immediate intention to locate a custody suite in Oldham, but it may be sensible to future-proof the design of the site to enable this in future if needed”.

 

Therefore, the Council resolves:

1.    To formally note its position that a new Police Station in Oldham should include appropriate custody provision.

2.    Set a target to agree a location for a new police station in Oldham within the next six months. If a location is not agreed within that timescale, to provide a report to the appropriate scrutiny committee detailing:

a. The requirements for any location for a new police station.

b.    Any sites which have been discussed and the reasons why they have not been deemed suitable.

c.    How the Council proposes to identify and bring forward future sites that meet the requirements for a police station in Oldham.

 

AMENDMENT

 

Councillor Shah MOVED and Councillor Aftab Hussain SECONDED the following AMENDMENT

 

The Council notes that:

·  With the closure of custody suites at both Oldham and Chadderton, Oldham Borough currently has no dedicated facilities open to process detainees.

·  Additional services lost include the Magistrates Court, County Court, and police stations in Failsworth, Chadderton and Royton, with other facilities having no face-to-face service, and access to other sites removed, such as in Shaw.

·  Current processes mean that officers are required to process detainees at Tameside, which means additional travel time of over an hour for each arrest.

·  The current police station in Oldham has been beyond its service life for a number of years, with the current chief constable in 2021 describing the comparing the building to those in the old East Germany.

·  The Chief Constable also noted that: “custody facilities being tethered to the right operating base is really important”.

 

The Council further notes the most recent report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) on custody provision in Manchester, including that:

·  Leadership for custody provision isn’t strong enough to make sure the service is provided well and achieves appropriate outcomes for detainees. There is limited prioritisation of custody by senior officers or engagement in how custody is provided. There hasn’t been enough improvement since our previous inspection. Significant concerns remain.

·  The position is exacerbated by a large increase in the number of detainees entering custody. This makes it difficult for staff to fulfil all their duties and meet detainees’ needs.

·  The force should deal with detainees promptly and minimise the time they spend in custody by - booking detainees into custody promptly and prioritising them appropriately, especially children and those who are vulnerable; …And finally, the Council notes that:

·  Oldham Council has been in discussions with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Police for a number of years over a new site for a police station, with no location having currently been identified.

·  During these conversations the Council has been clear that any new police station should have custody provision for the Borough and the north-east of Greater Manchester conurbation.

·  These conversations have been well received by Greater Manchester Police’s estates team.

·  Police and Crime Commissioner Kate Green has acknowledged in a written response to enquiries from the Liberal Democrats that: “there is no immediate intention to locate a custody suite in Oldham, but it may be sensible to future-proof the design of the site to enable this in future if needed”.

·  The Council and Oldham’s MPs have called for this too, with Jim McMahon OBE MP recently raising this issue with the Mayor of Greater Manchester directly.

Therefore, the Council resolves:

1.     To formally note its position that a new Police Station in Oldham should include appropriate custody provision.

2.     Set a target to agree a location for a new police station in Oldham within the next six months. If a location is not agreed within that timescale, to provide a report to the appropriate scrutiny committee detailing:

a.     The requirements for any location for a new police station.

b.     Any sites which have been discussed and the reasons why they have not been deemed suitable.

c.     How the Council proposes to identify and bring forward future sites that meet the requirements for a police station in Oldham.

 

On being put to the VOTE the AMENDMENT was CARRIED

 

On being put to the VOTE the Motion as AMENDED was CARRIED

 

RESOLVED

Therefore, the Council resolves:

1.    That Council formally notes its position that a new Police Station in Oldham should include appropriate custody provision.

2.    That Council sets a target to agree a location for a new police station in Oldham within the next six months. If a location is not agreed within that timescale, that a report be submitted to the appropriate Scrutiny Board of the Council, detailing:

a.     The requirements for any location for a new police station.

b.     Any sites which have been discussed and the reasons why they have not been deemed suitable.

c.     How the Council proposes to identify and bring forward future sites that meet the requirements for a police station in Oldham.

 

 

Motion 3: The Old Library: An Anti-Democratic Debacle

Moved by Councillor Woodvine

Seconded by Councillor Byrne

 

On 16^th August 2025 the Leader of Oldham Council, Councillor Arooj Shah, announced she had unilaterally decided to rename the Old Library on Union Street the ‘J. R. Clynes Building’ to the bemusement of many residents of Oldham Borough.

 

This follows a £30+ million renovation project, yet the Council Tax paying public of Oldham were not given an opportunity to express their preference on the title that this public building would take.

 

The Conservative Group on Oldham Council believe this is not only anti-democratic but also shameful.

 

Therefore, this Council notes:

·       That no public consultation took place in the naming process of the Old Library building.

·       That the Leader of the Council shamefully and willfully excluded democratically elected Councillors and the taxpaying public from the naming process.

·       That the first decision to come out of the Borough’s new Council Chambers is an anti-democratic diktat by Councillor Arooj Shah, which has no popular consent from the public.

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To reveal all information, including associated costs, in relation to the naming process of the Old Library.

2.    To review the naming process and suitability of ‘J. R. Clynes’ as the title of the building.

3.    To consult the wider body of democratically elected Members of Oldham Council from across the Borough.

4.    To present a suitable short list of names to the public of Oldham to give them a voice in the naming process of a building which should be the Borough’s beating heart of democracy.

 

AMENDMENT

 

Councillor Harkness MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the following AMENDMENT

 

On the 16^th August 2025 the Leader of Oldham Council, Councillor Arooj Shah, announced she had unilaterally decided to rename the Old Library on Union Street the ‘J. R. Clynes Building’ to the bemusement of many residents of Oldham Borough.

 

This follows a £30+ million renovation project, yet the Council Tax paying public of Oldham were not given an opportunity to express their preference on the title that this public building would take.

 

The Conservative Group on Oldham Council believe this is not only anti-democratic but also shameful.

 

Therefore, this Council notes:

a.    That there was no process that took place in naming the building. There was just an announcement.

b.    That no public consultation took place in the naming process of the Old Library building.

c.     That the Leader of the Council shamefully and willfully excluded democratically elected Councillors and the taxpaying public from the naming process.

d.    That the first decision to come out of the Borough’s new Council Chambers is anti-democratic diktat by Councillor Arooj Shah, which has no popular consent from the public.

 

This Council believes that the name of the building should have been an opportunity to involve the community and bring people together. There are many people who have provided exemplary service to our Borough, or the name represents the Borough’s rich and diverse heritage.

 

This Council resolves:

1.         To reveal all information, including associated costs, in relation to the naming process of the Old Library.

2.         To review the naming process and suitability of ‘J. R. Clynes’ as the title of the building.

3.         To consult the wider body of democratically elected Members of Oldham Council from across the Boroughand hold a working group to provide a list of suitable shortlist of names for residents to be consulted on.

4.         Allow residents to vote for the new name of the Old Library, to give them a voice in the naming process of a building which should be the Borough’s beating heart of democracy, and endorse the public’s choice with a formal agreement at the soonest Council meeting after the consultation, as a mark of that public voice and in the spirit of democracy.

 

On being put to the VOTE the AMENDMENT was LOST

 

On being put to the VOTE the Motion was LOST