Council Tax – Alternative Budget Council Speech

Details: Liberal Democrat Opposition Budget Proposals 1 March 2017

Mr Mayor, I rise tonight to move the amendments to the Administration’s Budget proposed by the Opposition Liberal Democrat Group.

With the support of diligent officers, the Liberal Democrat finance team of Councillors John McCann and Diane Williamson have come up with some innovative and fully-costed proposals to meet the public’s key demands for better roads, cleaner streets and to tackle the rising problem of anti-social behaviour.

It is interesting to note that once more the Conservative Group has not submitted any amendment.

This year the Administration is proposing a general increase in Council Tax of 1.99 percent and an additional two percent increase ring-fenced to spend on social care.

The Liberal Democrats fully support these proposals.  The reality is that we must do this.  Our essential services are being starved of cash by this Conservative Government and our social care system is in crisis.

And let’s be clear that 2% increase in Council Tax will nowhere near be enough to close the ever increasing gap there is in funding adult care.

Let us take a moment to look at our financial situation – and it is a sad and increasing desperate one.

Unlike Conservative controlled Surrey County Council, which appears to have secured more money from Government in a sweetheart deal, Oldham cannot anticipate a similar windfall.

Rather, we, like many similar local authorities, have now largely dispensed with the flesh and are starting to cut into the bone or dare I say, we are sawing off the limbs.

We may soon face a real danger that our funds will be so low that even those services that we are by law obliged to provide will be under grave threat.

This year the Administration has had to cut £15 million from our 2017-2018 budget.

Conservative Government strategy – though malice is rather a better description – is to cut the Revenue Support Grant, the money that we receive from central Government to support our local services, in stages from £30 million now to nil by the end of the 2020 – 2021 financial year.

That’s a £30 million shortfall that we are expected to meet.

That’s a big shortfall to make up with no certainty that we can do so.

This Government wants local authorities to self-finance our services, but this is a lot harder in a low wage, high demand Borough like Oldham than it is in affluent Surrey.

This Government’s approach of taking away with the one hand and then appearing to give with the other.

Take the Better Care Fund.  Cash is going up – good news, or so you might think, but other health-related revenue streams are being slashed, wiping out any increase and is in fact a cut!

And this at a time that £3 million of additional pressures are being built into our budget to meet the rising cost of social care – that’s £3 million additional in each and every year.

This year £5.5 million of our reserves are being deployed to meet the 2017 – 2018 budget gap.

This may be a temporary but necessary expedient, but it is like handing a drowning person an inflatable lift raft with a hole in it.

They frantically blow into the raft for as long as they are able but that cannot be forever.

Finally they expire and the waters close over them.  How long will it be before our reserves expire and the waters of austerity close over us?

So I do not envy Councillor Jabbar and his finance team.

Indeed I have to pay tribute to him and all the Council’s Officers for putting together a budget in the most trying of circumstances.

I would like to reiterate the point that I made last year that the Oldham Liberal Democrat Group is at one with the Labour Administration in resisting further central Government cuts.

And can I also say in fighting our corner to get Oldham’s fair share of a devolved budget for Greater Manchester, something I am far from convinced is happening!

It would be remiss of me not to mention how glad I am to see that the Link Centre has been given a stay of execution, and hopefully a bright and long future.

In September of last year I wrote to Councillor Harrison to suggest that we look to establish an independent trust to run the centre and I was pleased to see that this is a suggestion that this Administration has decided to adopt.

We must now hope that a new trust can attract sufficient external funding and the backing of the right parties to make the centre a future success.  Its’ services will be increasingly needed in times to come.

I turn now to our proposed amendment.

Mr Mayor, our amendment is of two parts – we have identified additional savings or more honestly, cuts that we are convinced can be made without impacting on essential services and we have identified investments in core services that are most valued by our ratepayers.

What matters to most people in this Borough are the issues they face every day in their communities – crumbling highways, dumped sofa beds, blocked gullies and feral youth engaged in all kinds of intimidating, anti-social and downright criminal behaviour!

These are the issues we seek to address tonight.  Are our proposals to tackle them new?  No they are not.  And I make no apologies for that!  We are consistent year on year in what we would do differently.

We have been making these same proposals, or ones very similar, at each of the last five Budget Councils and we will continue to ask for them because they represent common sense and they are what the public wants.

We would invest £472,000 to make our highways better and our streets cleaner and safer.  This may not sound much, but let me tell you what we as Liberal Democrats would do with this money.

We would use some of this money to enable us to borrow an extra £5 million over the coming year to invest in improving our Borough’s roads to make driving safer and more pleasant for road users.

We would use £170,000 of this money to employ an extra gully cleaning team and an extra vehicle to tackle more of the gullies in our Borough that are clogged with soil creating water on our highways that make driving dangerous and increase the possibility of flooding.

We would invest an extra £79,000 to restore a free Bulky Bobs waste collection service so that no-one will be unable to access a free-at-the-point-of-need service and helping to reduce the many instances of fly-tipping of bulky households that continue to blight our Borough.

And last but not least we would invest a further £60,000 in youth outreach workers.  All councillors of all parties of all areas will tell you of the problems of anti-social behaviour caused by the small minority.

This investment will provide more workers on our streets to engage youth in positive activity.

So,

  • Better roads
  • Clearer gullies
  • Cleaner streets and
  • Less anti-social behaviour

All priorities for the residents of Oldham and all this for less than half a million pounds.

As the saying goes ‘it’s a no brainer really isn’t it’?

And how are we going to pay for this?

By reducing spending on publications, printing and advertising; tackling sickness; employing less agency staff and reducing the size of our marketing, communications and policy team.

And once more proposing to reduce spending on street lighting in the wee small hours and in rural areas where it is not needed – for as my colleague John McCann famously said last year ‘sheep cannot read’.  And I would add if they can they can, they can do it in the dark!

Mr Mayor, these are all common-sense savings targeted at bureaucracy and waste – bug-bears to our long-suffering rate payers – and they amount to almost £734,000 a year.

So not only would we be able to afford our investments to improve highways and tackle the blight of fly-tipping, dirty streets, blocked gullies, flooding and anti-social behaviour, but we can put over £260,000 back into the pot; year after year.

Mr Mayor, these investments will have a real positive impact on the quality of life of our residents.  This is about getting the basics right and spending less on back-office bureaucracy in the Civic Centre!

I also feel that now is the time that we take a long hard look at our future financial position.  With the reduction in Revenue Support Grant of £30 million the reality is that our spending will be pared to the bone.

So we need a clear view of the services we are obliged by law as a local authority we are obliged to deliver in law and their delivering these services costs.  Surely then all that remains must be subject to further scrutiny and may be cut.

I hope that this review can be carried out on a cross-party basis and built on consensus.

One area where we as Liberal Democrats are clear a cut should be made is in the number of Councillors.

This is a sensible suggestion that we have made before and we will make again.

We are proposing a reduction by one-third in the number of our Councillors.  We feel that with a Cabinet system we could function with forty rather than sixty Councillors.

This has been an approach adopted by Labour-controlled Knowsley Council and it is one we also want to see here.

We estimate that this would save this authority at least £185,000 every year.

But the time to act is now as such a proposal needs the approval of the Boundary Commission.

We are also proposing an investment in LED lighting in our street lamps.  Not only will such a plan save us money in the long-term, but it will also reduce our carbon emissions and be good for our environment.

Mr Mayor, I should like to talk more but now my time is up so let me summarise – the Liberal Democrats proposal is for:

  • More savings on waste and bureaucracy;
  • Immediate investments to make our highways and streets safer;
  • Greener and cleaner Borough;
  • A long-term plan to ensure we meet our legal obligations to provide statutory services.

I therefore commend this amendment to this Chamber.

Councillor Howard Sykes MBE, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Oldham Council – 1 March 2017.

Liberal Democrats call for Oldham Council to fix the roads, spend more on reducing flooding and keep the streets cleaner

Copy of the budget amendment: Liberal Democrat Opposition Budget Proposals 1 March 2017

The Liberal Democrat Group on Oldham Council will propose that in this year’s budget more money is invested on highway and environmental improvements to make the Borough’s streets safer and cleaner.

The Leader of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Group, Cllr Howard Sykes MBE, said: “I would like to thank Council officers and my colleagues Councillors John McCann and Diane Williamson for their invaluable support in putting together these proposals.”

“The Liberal Democrat Group recognises that once again this year the Labour Administration has been forced to cut spending and services as the grant from central government has once more been squeezed; and the situation will not improve whilst the Conservatives remain in office.”

“Local government continues to be one of the biggest victims of this Government’s austerity strategy and things will only get worse; by 2021 Oldham will lose its entire central Government grant.”

Labour has again proposed that Council Tax bills rise by 2% to pay for improvements to adult social care and a further 1.99% for other services.

Cllr Sykes commented: “The Liberal Democrats will once again support this rise as it will at least raise some more money for services; but we also think it is important to focus every penny that we have on core services.  As well as revenue-raising, our strategy is to continue to identify savings in back-office bureaucracy and waste to free up money to support the services that are most valued by our ratepayers.”

This year, once more the Liberal Democrats are proposing measures that will generate more than £730,000 in savings each year – from reducing publications, printing and advertising, to tackling absenteeism; and reducing expenditure on employing agency staff and reducing the size of the communications/policy team.  The cash saved will be spent on better roads, cleaner streets and more youth outreach provision.

Cllr Sykes said: “We recognise that this is only a relatively small amount compared to the many millions that this Council has been forced to save, but this modest amount could nonetheless be a game-changer – it would provide us with the revenue we need to borrow more than £5 million to invest in our key highways, with enough left over to radically improve our gully-cleaning service, restore a free Bulky Bobs waste collection service and pay for more youth outreach provision to engage with young people in our communities.”

The Liberal Democrats are calling for over £470,000 from the additional savings that they have identified to go to:

  • Fund a £5 million investment programme to tackle the repairs backlog on the borough’s main and secondary highways
  • Employ four more staff and an extra vehicle on gully-cleaning across the borough
  • Restore the free Bulky Bobs bulk waste collection service to the public
  • Increasing the provision for youth outreach workers

Cllr Sykes explained why the Liberal Democrat Group wanted once again, to focus on investing in highway improvements and tackling blocked gullies and fly-tipping across the Borough:

“There is a backlog amounting to over £5 million in road repairs to our Borough’s main and secondary highways.  Our highways improvement programme will make our key roads safer and smoother for drivers and their passengers and our Borough a more attractive one to travel in.”

“An extra gully cleaning team and vehicle will mean we can free up more of the many gullies that are currently clogged with soil.  When a gully is blocked water does not run away and the road can become slippery for drivers, especially when the water turns to ice.  Local properties can also be flooded.  Blocked gullies have to be dug out by hand, which is a slow and labour-intensive process that is costly.  This timely investment on gully-cleaning represents good sense”.

“We also full support returning Bulky Bobs to a free service.  Time and again we read reports in the local press or hear from our constituents about furniture and other bulky household detritus being dumped in our streets.  This is also a complaint made by several Labour Councillors in full Council over the past twelve months.”

“Poorer people are unable to afford to pay for a collection service and irresponsible people do not want to.  Making Bulky Bobs free again would mean that no one has any excuse for dumping these unwanted goods.”

Shaw ASDA proposal for a petrol filling station

1_for_web_caseStudy

Draft plan: asda-draft-pfs-proposal

Dear Neighbour,

Asda Shaw, proposals for a new petrol filling station (PFS)

I am writing regarding Asda’s proposals for a new 4 pump (8 position) PFS at the Shaw Supercentre on Greenfield Lane.

We are committed to keeping the stores neighbours informed as the proposals progress.  We will be holding two drop-in sessions at the store:

  • 5:30pm – 7:30pm on Thursday 23rd February for the stores immediate neighbours
  • 10am – 2pm on Friday 24th February for the wider community

These sessions are not formal public meetings, so please visit at a time that is convenient to you.  If visiting on Thursday 23rd, please ask an Asda Colleague at the Customer Services desk to direct you to the display.

Representatives from Asda will be present to explain more about the proposals and answer questions.  There will also be an opportunity to give feedback on the plans directly to local councillors on Thursday 23rd February from 5:30pm to 7pm.  No planning application has been submitted to Oldham Borough Council and these discussions form part of the pre-application consultation with the local community.

In these times of rising costs, only ASDA is committed to a national price cap on fuel, which, as noted by the Office of Fair Trading in its 2013 report, drives down local prices by up to 8p a litre, to the benefit of local families.  This, alongside our everyday low in-store prices, can make a real difference for local people.

If you would like to know more about the proposals, please contact Andrew Lester of HardHat. who are coordinating the sessions on: 0800 170 7270 or email alester@hardhat.co.uk

Yours faithfully,

Alan Jones

Senior Property Communciations Manager

Parliament Square transformation long overdue, says Liberal Democrat Leader

js49571077

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Opposition Group on Oldham Council, Councillor Howard Sykes MBE, has expressed his deep disappointment that work to transform Parliament Square is not yet complete.

Councillor Sykes remarked that: “Although we as politicians were all pleased to see the cinema opening, it is very disappointing that months later the work on improvement works to the square is still not complete.”

“My understanding was that this work was scheduled for completion by Christmas or very early in the New Year so I sorry to see that there is still much to do at the bottom end of the site.”

“We must only hope that the contractors are able to pull back the timetable and finish the work soon so that Parliament Square might finally become the high quality town centre focal point that we all wish for and not a building site.”

Oldham Liberal Democrats Greater Manchester Strategic Framework (GMSF) submission; residents urged to get their comments in by the 16 January deadline

images

The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Opposition Group on Oldham Council, Councillor Howard Sykes MBE, has formally submitted the Liberal Democrats Groups response to the recent GMSF consultation.

Councillor Sykes has also urged residents to make sure they also make their views known and respond before the 16 January deadline.

“People are angry and very passionate about the proposed loss of vast tracks of our green space and Green Belt but must make a response if they are to have any chance of having their voices being heard,” stated Councillor Sykes.

The email address is: GMSF@agma.gov.uk, The postal address is: Greater Manchester Integrated Support Team, PO Box 532, Town Hall, Manchester M60 2LA.

Copy of the letter is below:

Greater Manchester Integrated Support, PO Box 532, Town Hall, Manchester M60 2LA

Dear Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Team,

Re: OLDHAM COUNCIL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP – RESPONSE TO DRAFT GREATER MANCHESTER SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

The Oldham Council Liberal Democrat Group and the Official Opposition on Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, wishes to make this collective submission in response to the consultation on the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (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.

The consultation document provides insufficient analysis of how these deductions for population and economic growth have been made and therefore is devoid of justification for the additional land demands.  Further specific clarification of the rationale would be welcome and is desperately needed.

The plan requires 690,000 m2 industrial and warehousing space and 13,700 homes in the Oldham Borough.  Of these 13,700 homes approximately 3,000 will be located on sites in Royton, Shaw and Crompton and other vast tracts of land (Green Belt) are designated for industrial development.

To the Liberal Democrat Group and to many of our constituents, these plans represent a massive and inequitable land grab in Royton, Shaw and Crompton with the devastation of our local Green Belt and OPOL (Other Protected Open Land).

It is proposed that new properties will be built at Cowlishaw; in the Beal Valley; Rushcroft; the Whitfield Farm area over towards 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’.

It is the view of the Liberal Democrat Group that there is no justification for the construction of a large number of properties (or indeed any properties) on Green Belt or OPOL before new homes are first built on Brownfield sites, on sites where planning permission for housing development has already been granted and upon the many derelict and unloved sites in our town centres and districts.

It is unfortunate that the 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).

Furthermore it is our view that conversions should take place so empty mills and factories can be used for housing (buildings and/or sites); as can land marked for industrial/commercial use; and bring the large number of empty homes back into use.

All this should be done before any consideration is given to future development on Green Belt or OPOL and this development for Oldham should, in our view, be apportioned better in the Metropolitan Borough rather than disproportionately in Royton, Shaw and Crompton as at present.

The draft GMSF readily identifies the need for a 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 Royton, 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 National/European distribution centres.

The increase in population will necessitate provision of additional services.  The GMSF does not appear to adequately address available funding to deliver on these requirements.

In Shaw and Crompton, the necessary infrastructure to support even our existing population is lacking.  We have primary schools that are already overcrowded or 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 Royton, 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.

Now doesn’t Oldham Council’s decision to close and not replace the Crompton Swimming Pool and Gym look 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.

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 is a central theme of the strategy.

In view of the above aspiration it is difficult to understand why the specific green sites in Royton, Shaw and Crompton have been proposed.  There has 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’ and Crompton Circuit walks.  These locations also provide one of the few opportunities for people to undertake horse riding in safely 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 Spatial Plan, Robert Fletcher’s in the Greenfield valley, which has long been seen as needing a strategic view and plan to avoid piecemeal development.  Indeed Saddleworth 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.

The Oldham Council Liberal Democrat Group firmly believes that our precious Green Spaces should be protected.

The Group strongly advocates 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 unloved sites in our town centres and districts; and also after the conversion of mills and factories 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.

Yours sincerely – Howard Sykes

Public consultation on the first draft of Greater Manchester Spatial Framework is being extended until January 16 2017

 

imagesPublic consultation on the first draft of Greater Manchester Spatial Framework is being extended until January 16 2017

Greater Manchester Combined Authority has been consulting on the first draft of the GM Spatial Framework since 31 October.  This is an important plan and it has already generated a huge amount of public interest.  Many public events have taken place across the region and more than 32,000 people have logged on to our consultation website to find out more about the proposals and how to respond.  The GMCA  wants to make sure that everyone who wants to, has the opportunity to take part in the consultation, and some people have told us that they need longer so GMCA  has decided to extend the consultation until Monday 16 January 2017 (23.59)

Go to the web page to have your say at https://www.greatermanchester_ca.gov.uk/info/20081/draftplan

You can also follow the GMSF on Twitter https://twitter.com/gmspatialframe (@GMSpatialframe)

Oldham Council 14 December 2016 – leaders questions from Councillor Howard Sykes

questions-to-ask-your-LASIK-doctorLeaders Question 1 – Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

Mr Mayor, my first question of the Leader tonight again relates to the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

I make no apology for it, Mr Mayor, because in my part of the world this is undoubtedly the single most important local issue to our citizens.

I was surprised by the response of the Leader last time.

She talked of the need for more homes in our Borough and more aspirational homes in our Borough – something I do not disagree with – but there was no recognition that the growth and pain should be shared across the Borough, rather than concentrated in one corner of it!

Mr Mayor, I would like to reiterate that the land earmarked to build an awful lot of these new homes is in Shaw, in Crompton and in Royton.

It may be that only three percent of the Borough’s Green Belt is being lost, but the lion’s share of that amount is being lost is in the wards represented by myself and my colleagues for Shaw, Crompton and Royton.

Under the proposals outlined under the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, over 3000 new homes will be built on green field sites in Shaw and Crompton alone!

Vast swathes of Green Belt stretching from the rear of Dunwood Park to Burnage will be lost forever to bricks, concrete and tarmac.

3,000 new homes built in two wards in which, as a consequence of the withdrawal of local facilities or underinvestment, 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.

3,000 new homes that are built for growing families will need more primary and secondary school places; more GPs and dentists; and new highways and more buses and trams to get them about their daily business.

And doesn’t the decision not to replace the Crompton Pool and Gym now look 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?

More and more of my constituents are frankly getting more and more fearful and angry about these proposals.

This frustration was reflected in the fact that more than 200 residents turned up recently to a public consultation and we have had to organise a second event tomorrow, Thursday 15 December.

My question tonight Mr Mayor is in three parts.

  • I would firstly like to ask the Leader whether she really is convinced that there is a need for such a large land grab of Green Belt to build so many homes and such an increase in industrial provision in our Borough?
  • And if the answer is yes, why is it that the lion’s share of that burden is placed upon Shaw, Crompton and Royton rather than apportioned out with other parts of the Borough having a Fair Share?
  • And lastly would the Leader agree with me that we first need to develop on brown field land, on land with existing planning permission for housing and on unloved derelict sites, and also bring back empty homes into occupation and convert empty factories and mills into flats, before we look to touch any part of our precious Green Belt and Green Spaces?

 

Leaders Question 2 – Promoting the Borough’s Real Ale, Music and Comedy Scene

 In July 2013, I asked the then Leader of the Council to join me in backing Oldham’s live music and comedy scene.

At that time, the former Castle Pub, a well-known music venue, had just closed on Union Street but there was still a vibrant music scene with six venues for live performances in the town centre.

With the recent bad news that Marks and Spencer will not be joining us at Prince’s Gate, we need to highlight the positive things that Oldham has to offer.

With the opening of the new Cinema complex and a new Coliseum Theatre complex on the way, our night-time leisure offer is being transformed.

No longer is Yorkshire Street and Union Street like the Wild West by night – instead we have cafes and bars that are safe for families and couples to visit after dark.  So let’s celebrate that.

This presents us with the opportunity to showcase the best of what Oldham has to offer – shopping or a visit to our Gallery or Museum during the day, a bite to eat in the early evening in the restaurants in Parliament Square or the Independent Quarter, a performance at the Theatre, and then maybe the opportunity to stay on into the late evening for a drink or two in a real ale pub and the chance to listen to some live music or a comedy show.

Oldham potentially offers the perfect day out and; with the Metrolink network now being even more extensive and trams more frequent; it is possible for people to visit this Borough from every part of Greater Manchester.

We need to shout about that.  So now is the time to revisit how we promote the Borough.

As part of a new tourism strategy can I ask the Leader to ask officers to produce a brochure, or brochures if one is not enough, of real ale pubs and live music and comedy venues around the Borough with their links to public transport?   And that this information is made available in print, web and an app.