My two allowed questions at tonight’s (13 Sept) Oldham Council meeting – Payment of Invoices and Free Bulky Waste collections

Oldham Council 12 September 2017 – Leader’s Questions

Question 1 – Invoices

Mr Mayor, my first question relates to how this Council supports small businesses in this Borough.

I am sure the Leader is aware that in April of this year the Leader of her party announced that a Labour Government would ‘declare war on late payment’ to small businesses.

Speaking at an event organised by the Federation of Small Businesses, the Labour leader called it ‘a national scandal’ that big companies were withholding more than £26 billion from suppliers, forcing 50,000 of them out of business every year.

Local Labour MP Debbie Abrahams commented favourably on this.  She has been championing a similar local campaign ‘Be Fair – Pay on Time’.

She reported at the time that over 400 businesses in Oldham East and Saddleworth have said they are struggling to pay staff because of late payments and 66 went bust.

All very commendable – I am sure we all want to see a thriving small business sector in our country and especially in our Borough – and cash flow difficulties caused by late payment kills businesses.

So why is it that Debbie doesn’t seem to have publically taken Oldham Council to task?

For the average length of time this Labour Council takes to pay an invoice was 24 days in 2015 / 2016, when it was only 15 when the Liberal Democrats ran the Council, I was Leader.

Mr Corbyn also said that a Labour government would require any company bidding for a public sector contract to pay its own suppliers within 30 days and would look at introducing fines for persistent late payers.

This Council will have to be careful that the promised legislation doesn’t extend to penalising Councils who follow the same practice – for it is likely that Oldham would have to pay a hefty fine.

For in 2015/16, the number of invoices this Council paid after 30 days was 15,247, when it was only 8,051 under the Liberal Democrats.  And the current system does not even allow us to identify which invoices are delayed because of disputes and which because of inefficiency.

This Administration makes a great play of its deal with Oxygen Finance whereby suppliers can be paid in five days instead of 30 in return for paying an ‘Early Repayment Fee’, but why should businesses pay us money to receive the money that they are owed by us more quickly?

In my day, the Liberal Democrat Administration simply placed more emphasis on paying our suppliers, especially our local suppliers promptly.

So can I ask the Leader tonight what she will now do to ensure that this Council will ‘Be Fair to our small businesses and Pay on Time’?

Question 2 – Free Bulky Bobs Collection

Mr Mayor, for my second question I would like to turn to the issue of bulky waste collections.

I was glad to see that the Council is looking to re-tender for the bulky waste collection service.

I would like to reveal what appears to be a closely kept secret – that under the current contract delivered by Bulky Bobs some residents are still able to access a free bulky waste collection services.

I say closely kept secret – because even I did not know it until recently and I am sure that many members in this Chamber will not know of it either.

For a little known fact is that when charging was first introduced by the new Labour Administration in 2012 there was, in part due to the pressure and concerns the Liberal Democrats had, an acknowledgement that certain low income groups must still be able to access a limited free bulky waste collection service.

This was to ensure that they were not “disproportionately disadvantaged” by the charge for this service, as defined by the 2010 Equalities Act.

So any customers who are – I quote – “Any customers physically disabled, infirm due to old age, or pregnant are entitled to one free collection a year.”

Interestingly this proviso is not mentioned on the Council’s website or in any public papers for the recent Cabinet meeting at which it was agreed to re-tender the contract.

Nor can the information be found on the website of Bulky Bob or on Bulky Bob’s Facebook page.

So if you were one of these eligible “disadvantaged” customers, or a carer for them, you would not know the concession existed nor how to access it.

So, Mr Mayor, my second question to the Leader tonight is.

Can she confirm that this concession exists under the current contract and that it will be maintained under the new contract?

And can she also say how this concession will be publicised to eligible customers in future?

Works at Holy Trinity Church, Shaw

The works are still ongoing due to a problem that the contractor encountered with the condition of the iron railings, which basically fell apart in places when they were detached from the stone pillars; requiring careful restoration off site by specialists before being signed off for reinstatement/ fitting.

The problem with the railings has been resolved and they will be reinstated by the end of September 2017.  Other works are progress as planned.

Asking your views

As Liberal Democrats, we listen to your views and concerns on local and national issues.  Your views matter to us.  We are here to represent you and to achieve the best deal for Shaw and Crompton, so it is important that we understand what issues matter to you and what things can be done to keep our area a great place to live.

Please take a few minutes out of your day to fill in this survey, to let us know what matters most to you.

You can access the survey at www.shaw.residentssurvey.co.uk

As always, let us know if there are any issues that need resolving in the local area and we will do our best to help with these.

Local Plan consultation – Liberal Democrat response – make sure you make your voice heard

The consultation started on 10 July and ends of 21 August.

Details of the local plan can be found at https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200585/local_plan

Responses can be submitted online at http://oldham-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/oc/planning/spi or emailed to spi@oldham.gov.uk or returned by post to: Strategic Planning and Information, Economy, Skills and Neighbourhoods, Room 310, Level 3, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham OL1 1UH.

Below is the letter the Liberal Democrats have submitted.

Strategic Planning & Information, Economy, Skills and Neighbourhoods, Room 310 Level 3, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham OL1 1UH

15 August 2017

Re: OLDHAM COUNCIL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP – RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON THE OLDHAM LOCAL PLAN

The Oldham Council Liberal Democrat Group; the official opposition, comprising of nine elected members of the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council wish to make this collective submission in response to the consultation on the Oldham Local Plan.

Given that the Oldham Local Plan “will form an integral part of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF)” our response mirrors that made to the consultation on the GMSF.

In the GMSF, the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester have drawn up plans to meet the projected future need for 4,000,000 m2 of industrial and warehousing premises and 227,000 new homes in the county by 2035.  The vision projects a population growth of 294,800 and 199,700 additional jobs across Greater Manchester.

In our view, the GMSF consultation document provided insufficient analysis of how these deductions for population and economic growth were made and was therefore devoid of justification for the additional land demands.

The GMSF plan requires 690,000 m2 industrial and warehousing space and 13,700 homes in Oldham Borough.

Housing

Referring first to housing, the monitoring report identifies that there has been a shortfall in recent years in the completion of new dwellings against expected targets and that there is a need to complete an additional 3,560 dwellings by 31 March 2021 to meet the original projections.

Our worry is that the situation may present the danger of unwanted housing development on Oldham’s Green Belt and OPOL (other protected open land).

Under the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework proposals of the 13,700 new homes proposed for Oldham approximately 3,000 will be located on sites in Shaw and Crompton and other tracts of land are designated for industrial development.

To the Liberal Democrat Group, and too many of our constituents, these plans represent a massive and inequitable land grab in Shaw and Crompton with the devastation of our local Green Belt and OPOL (other protected open land).

Under GMSF, it is proposed that new properties will be built at Cowlishaw, in the Beal Valley, Rushcroft, the Whitfield Farm area over to Newhey and around Gravel Hole and Low Crompton.

Adjacent sites at Broadbent Moss (Oldham), Hanging Chadder (Oldham) and land East and West of the A627M (Rochdale and Oldham) if developed would also see a significant erosion of the Green Belt land in the so called “Northern Gateway”.

The Oldham Local Plan monitoring report has a target that 80% of new residential development will take place on previously developed land, yet in 2015/16, 96% of new or converted dwellings were located on this land.

It is the view of the Liberal Democrat Group that there is no justification for reducing our aspiration and effort to build on previously developed land.

We do not believe that there is any need for the construction of a large number of properties (or indeed any properties) on Green Belt or OPOL land.  New homes should first be built on Brownfield sites, on sites where planning permission for housing development has already been granted and upon the many derelict and the unloved sites in our town centres and districts.

Furthermore it is our view that conversions should take place so every empty mill and factory, where viable, is utilised for housing and that the large number of empty homes should be brought back into use.

It is our view that the Oldham Local Plan should make plain that these will be tenets upon which housing development will take place in this borough. We should work on the belief that our Green Belt and OPOL sites remain protected.

It is also unfortunate that the GMSF consultation document does not identify the many such sites that are available across the Borough other than those that currently sit outside Oldham’s Local Development Framework (formerly the Unitary Development Plan).

It is our view that the Oldham Local Plan should ultimately list these sites and that team of officers working on the Oldham Local Plan should work with Ward Members and the public to identify appropriate sites with potential for development for inclusion.

Within the Local Plan, housing development should also be apportioned across the whole borough rather than disproportionately in Royton, Shaw and Crompton as the GMSF does at present.

It is our view that the Oldham Local Plan should include a commitment to proportionality so that any one or two districts in the borough are not overwhelmed with new housing, and in order that new householders may have a greater choice of the area in which they wish to live.

Transport

It is important too that the Oldham Local Plan addressed the need for very significant investment in transport infrastructure.  Improved transport is a critical obstacle to be overcome to ensure the success of the expansion desired in the GMSF.  Many of the strategic allocations are sited near our motorway corridors, ostensibly to take advantage of existing networks.

However, our existing motorways are frequently constrained by high levels of congestion resulting in unacceptable journey times and additional traffic jams on feeder and local roads. The projected growth of industrial warehousing, office space and new homes will require monumental investment in transport infrastructure.  It is of paramount importance to ensure that the transport infrastructure is in place before other building takes place.

All the sites identified, especially those in Shaw and Crompton are devoid of good vehicular access and there is no obvious way to make the necessary improvements.

Cowlishaw has no acceptable roads leading into the proposed site.  The topography around the Whitfield farm area makes it difficult to envisage an elegant solution to site access.  Similarly the Beal Valley site is currently served only by a narrow road and the desire to facilitate access to this site by enhancing links to Shaw and Crompton Metrolink Station seem incredulous; the only current access, via Beal Lane, is saturated with existing traffic and HGV movements to and from existing businesses which are large distribution centres.

Other Infrastructure

The increase in population will necessitate provision of additional services.  It is vital that the Oldham Local Plan addresses these needs and the GMSF fails to do so.

In Shaw and Crompton, the necessary infrastructure to support even our existing population is lacking.  We have primary schools that are already overcrowded and full; a secondary school that is falling apart; a dilapidated Health Centre that is near cardiac arrest; no swimming facilities or dry leisure provision; precious few youth facilities and no municipal tip.

Under the proposals, 3,000 homes will be built in Shaw and Crompton for growing families.

These new residents will need more primary and secondary school places; more GPs and dentists; leisure and shopping facilities; and new highways and more buses and trams to get them there.

And Oldham Council’s decision to close and not replace the Crompton Pool and Gym now looks a little short-sighted given the number of new young residents that will need to learn to swim and the number of adults that will want to keep fit.

The Environment

It is vital that the Oldham Local Plan contains a strong commitment to retaining and enhancing our local beauty spots and sites of biological and scientific importance.

An important vision of the GMSF is that Greater Manchester becomes as well known for the quality of its environment as for its economic success.

Green Belt plays a role in this but there are important green spaces, parks, rivers and canals in the heart of our urban communities which are equally valuable. The protection and enhancement of our blue and green infrastructure should be a central theme of our local strategy.

In view of the above aspiration, it was frustrating and difficult to understand why the specific green sites in Shaw and Crompton were proposed with the GMSF.  There was been a lack of balance in the review and failure to give necessary weight to environmental and quality of life issues.

The vast majority of sites are notably attractive open spaces that provide pleasure, relaxation, and health benefits to local residents as well as our wider community.  The sites include public footpaths enjoyed by many dog-walkers, ramblers and walking groups.  Many of the Public Rights of Way are important to the historic Shaw and Crompton Beating of the Bounds walk and Crompton Circuit walks.  These locations also provide one of the few opportunities for people to undertake horse riding in safety which is particularly of concern for young and inexperienced riders.

These sites are further enhanced by a diverse range of flora and fauna and importantly provide those ‘green lung’ areas which minimise urban sprawl between built up conurbations.

Two of the sites include small but nevertheless important rivers within their boundaries; the Rivers Irk and Beal (Cowlishaw and Beal Valley respectively) help to prevent flooding and are attractive features of the two sites.

Additionally the Cowlishaw site is renowned for upwell of numerous local springs and given to serious flooding. The area has deep unstable subsoil that will require significant pilings leading to excessive construction costs.

Cowlishaw and Beal Valley also contain Sites of Biological Importance and these must be retained.

In regards to Saddleworth there is only one Strategic Site in the Greater Manchester Spatial Plan, which is Robert Fletcher’s in the Greenfield valley, which has long been seen as needing a strategic view and plan to avoid piecemeal development.  Indeed the Parish Council presented an outline plan for the valley some years ago and has done so again in response to the spatial proposals.

The plan proposes some 120 houses and 100 ‘lodges’ which one assumes, given past happenings, would become houses for some 220 residences.

These houses given the lack of public transport or facilities and the preference for high value housing would do nothing to lessen the need for affordable housing in the area.

The topography and lack of transport links and the high value of local scenery makes other large sites hard to find in Saddleworth especially given the presence of the Peak National Park there.

Saddleworth is, however, very vulnerable to the number of other smaller sites, some of them astoundingly unsuitable, offered for development in addition to those in this strategic framework.

The Green Belt and open spaces within Oldham are areas of pleasant natural beauty that make us unique in Greater Manchester.

Conclusion

The key point in our submission is that the Oldham Liberal Democrat Group firmly believes that in the Oldham Local Plan our precious Green Spaces should be protected.

We strongly advocate that no building on Green Belt or OPOL be undertaken until developments are first undertaken on Brownfield sites, on sites where planning permission for housing development has already been granted, and upon the many derelict and the unloved sites in our town centres and districts; and also after the conversion of every mill and factory into housing use and after every empty home has been brought back into use.

Only when all of these things have been done should we then, and only then, consider developing any part of our precious Green Belt.

This must be the central tenet and heavily emphasised as Council policy in the finalised Oldham Local Plan.

If this runs contrary to the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework then, in our view, so be it. It is important that our Oldham Local Plan emphasises what is right for Oldham, its environment and its people, not what other parties across Greater Manchester might think is right in development terms for our Borough.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Howard Sykes MBE

Planning Application 339852/17– ASDA, Shaw – Petrol Station

A number of you have been in touch regarding the above.

This is the latest situation as I understand it.

Dear Councillor Sykes,

 I can confirm that this application will not be on the July agenda.  We have secured an extension of time with the applicant to see if the highway engineers concerns can be addressed. 

 I will endeavour to inform you if and when the application will be on the planning committee agenda.

 Kind regards

 Martyn Leigh, Development Management Team Leader, Oldham Council

At the moment I cannot confirm which Planning Committee this application will be on, however, as soon as I have any further information I shall let people know.

I would urge people who have views on this application to formally do so online at the following address

https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200199/planning_and_building

Alternatively, if you wish to write a letter to put forward your views, please send your letter to the following address:

Planning Department, Civic Centre, PO Box 30, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1UQ.

You can also express your comments over the telephone (not recommended) to the Planning Department or via email at planning@oldham.gov.uk

Former Cricketers PH to provide much needed homes

This has be the site of anti-social behaviour and a blot on the landscape since it closed.

I have written to the previous owners and also the current ones urging them to develop the site for much needed local housing.

I am now very pleased to report it is being demolished which should take about three weeks.

Clements Court Properties are the owners and have moved very quickly with the site and met me at it only the other day.

They are keen to work with local councillors and the community and it is a refreshing change compared to the usual, which is the first you get to know is when they submit a planning application.

They are building 8 much needed 3 bedroom houses and two apartments on the site which are 2 bedroom.

Liberal Democrat Leader disappointed Local Plan Consultation held over Summer Holidays

The Leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Group on Oldham Council, Councillor Howard Sykes MBE, has expressed his disappointment that Council officers have chosen to conduct a public consultation on the Oldham Local Plan during the school holidays.

The consultation started on 10 July and ends of 21 August.

Details of the local plan can be found at https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200585/local_plan

Responses can be submitted online at http://oldham-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/oc/planning/spi or emailed to spi@oldham.gov.uk or returned by post to

Strategic Planning and Information, Economy, Skills and Neighbourhoods, Room 310, Level 3, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham OL1 1UH.

Councillor Sykes said: “The Oldham Local Plan may sound a dry document, but it is in fact the document that will underpin the delivery of new homes and new businesses in our Borough for years to come, and more importantly it will be the key document that will determine what happens locally under the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.”

“Many residents of this Borough, particularly in Shaw, Crompton, Royton and Chadderton, are up in arms about the implications of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework and they have held rallies at Tandle Hill Country Park and outside Manchester Town Hall in Albert Square to let it be known that they are opposed to development on our precious Green Belt.”

“Given the strength of local feeling, it is unacceptable to conduct a public consultation on an issue of such importance in the school holidays.  Many residents will be taking families away with them on holiday.  Responding to this consultation by the 21 August may be far from their minds, but if they feel strongly that they want to save their green belt I would urge them to take time to do so.”

Councillor Sykes and his Liberal Democrat colleagues in Shaw and Crompton remain vehemently opposed to plans to build almost 3,000 new homes in the two wards on surrounding Green Belt and other green land:

“Local residents are rightly up in arms, fearing that not only will the current plan mean that their precious Green Belt will be lost forever under a carpet of concrete, but also that the existing medical, school and leisure infrastructure, which is already severely stretched, will be completely swamped with the extra demand.”

The Liberal Democrats have a clear aspiration for future housing development in Greater Manchester.  Councillor Sykes explained: “Development should be on brownfield sites first, particularly sites with outstanding planning permission, coupled with mill and factory conversions to housing and a drive to bring existing empty homes back into occupancy, whenever this is practicable.  This view will form the basis of our response to the consultation.”