Questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Council Leader – Oldham Council 5th Feb. 2014

1) Monitoring Air Quality:

As one of the foremost cotton towns, with a continued legacy amongst our citizens of poor respiratory and cardio-vascular health, we must all recognise the importance of clean air to the well-being of the residents and wildlife of this borough.

Certainly in Shaw and Crompton, ward members, being conscious of the on-going impact of diesel fumes from the many HGVs that pass through our ward, en-route to and from local distribution centres, have campaigned long and hard for the installation of a station to monitor air quality. This campaign was recently rewarded when such a station was installed on Crompton Way.

Councillors may be unaware that the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants estimates that up to 29.000 deaths in the UK per year are attributable to poor air quality and that the World Health Organisation has recently classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans.

I was therefore recently concerned to hear of a suggestion by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the legal obligation be removed from local authorities to monitor air quality.

I am sure that the Leader will want to join me in seeking to maintain our Council’s commitment to carrying out these checks, and to continue to participate in the work of the Greater Manchester Air Quality Network, so can I invite him to join me (and the other group leader on Oldham Council) in sending a joint letter to the Minister expressing our concern over this issue?

2) Use of Discretionary Housing Payments and Local Welfare Provision Monies:

I would like to ask the Leader about the use of money allocated by the Coalition Government to provide relief for the poorest and most deserving residents of this borough affected by welfare reform.

I am referring to two ‘pots’ of money given by the Department of Work and Pensions – the DWP – to this authority – the Discretionary Housing Payments fund and local Welfare Provision Fund.

In the 2013 – 14 financial year, Oldham Council has received £498,000 in order that it “may be awarded, in addition to any welfare benefits, when a local authority considers that a claimant requires further financial assistance towards housing costs”.

It is principally used to meet shortfalls, where an award of housing benefit falls short of the rent owed on the property.

The sum that Oldham Council received this year was significantly larger than that received previously, with the intention that it be used in large part to meet rent shortfalls for those social tenants who were deemed to be under-occupying so they might have time to secure a smaller property or to increase their income (by taking up employment or taking in a lodger) to pay the rent.

As of the start of this week, £327,000 – or approximately two thirds – has been spent.

The Local Welfare Provision replaced a number of grants and social fund loans in April and is intended to “meet the short term emergency and immediate support needs of vulnerable people” and “assist vulnerable people to establish or maintain a home in the community”.

The DWP awarded £1,038,000 to this authority for this purpose.

My understanding is that by mid-December £453,000 – or under half of this money – had been spent.

However, only £213,000 of this went to needy applicants. £80,000 was spent on beefing up our welfare rights service, which we welcome. But worryingly £160,000 was spent on administration. There must surely be something wrong when Oldham Council is spending £4 on administration for every £5 awarded in grant?

We are now in the final quarter of the current financial year.
At this point, we have spent two thirds of one budget and under half of another.

So can the Leader please tell me how he intends to speed up payments in the final quarter to ensure the poorest and most needy residents of this borough get the money they are entitled to as the Government expected when it awarded this Council the money?

And what he intends to do with any underspend – which particularly in the case of the Local Welfare Provision is likely to be significant?

3) Zero Hours Contracts:

The use of zero hours’ contracts by employers has recently attracted significant criticism.

The Get Oldham Working strategy, a key corporate priority for this Council, includes a commitment (to quote from the Council’s own website) “to support ‘Fair Employment’ by promoting a Living Wage and tackling issues like ‘zero hours’ contracts”.

We had the debate about introducing the National Living Wage at last Council, so for tonight I will confine myself to a question relating to ‘zero hours’ contracts.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Dr Vince Cable, MP, has launched a public consultation on a range of proposals to reform the use of ‘zero hours contracts’ in the labour market. The closing date for the submission of comments is 13th March of this year.

The Leader will recall that I asked for a special hearing of the Overview and Scrutiny Board to be convened to respond to a similar consultation last summer by Government on the Work Capability Assessment.

I would like to ask the Leader to convene a similar hearing of O + S to which elected members and other interested parties, such as employers’ bodies and trades unions, are invited to attend, or otherwise contribute, in order that this Council can make a collective submission by the deadline.

Parish objects to disposal of green open space – Crompton Way/Milnrow Road/Siddall Street

I am pleased to report my colleagues on the Parish Council have backed my calls to oppose the sale of this green public open space in the heart of Shaw.

Below is a copy of their objection letter.

Oldham Council has now published its so called ‘public notice’ to let the people know about its plans to sell this land.

It was buried in the small print on page 25 of the Oldham Evening Chronicle, along with other disposals (called plot 3) on the 21st October 2013.

People have 28 days to object i.e. by NO LATER than the 18th November.

Objections need to be sent to:

Ref. Bernard Summers, Executive Director of Neighbourhoods Oldham Council, PDI Division, Level 6, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham OL1 1UH

If YOU feel strongly about this issue please do object by the deadline, I need your help to save/protect this key green space in the heart of Shaw

Copy of Parish letter:

Chief Executive
Oldham MBC
Civic Centre
West Street
Oldham
OL1 1UT

17 October 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Site of the Former Matthias Pilling House and Adjoining Land at Milnrow Road/Siddall Street, Shaw

At a meeting held on 14 October 2013, the Parish Council discussed a report by your Council’s Executive Director, Commercial Services, dated 9 September 2013. The purpose of the report was stated to be to seek authority to advertise an intention to dispose of land comprising the site of the former Matthias Pilling House and adjoining land at Milnrow Road/Siddall Street, Shaw, which had been identified as Public Open Space. A copy of the report is attached for ease of reference.

The Parish Council resolved to express to your Council:
• its opposition to the disposal of the Public Open Space that is not, and never has been, part of the former Matthias Pilling House site (for clarity, the area on the site plan which is not hatched), and
• its view that sale of the land comprising the site of the former Matthias Pilling House be restricted to social landlords, preferably those providing for older people. Members pointed out that this end use had been agreed previously with the then Metropolitan Borough Councillors for Shaw Ward and Chairman of the Housing Committee.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that the views of the Parish Council will be taken into account when reaching a decision about the future of these two pieces of land.

Yours faithfully

Dr Ray Hughes
Clerk to the Council

cc Oldham MBC Executive Director, Commercial Services,
Oldham MBC Councillors for Shaw Ward

DISPOSAL OF THE SITE OF THE FORMER MATTHIAS PILLING HOUSE SIDDALL STREET/MILNROW ROAD AND OTHER ADJOINING LAND

The above was discussed at a recent meeting of the Shaw and Crompton District Executive held on the 8 Oct 13.

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Commercial Services, which sought delegated authority to advertise an intention to dispose of land comprising the site of the former Matthias Pilling House and adjoining land at Milnrow Road/Siddall Street, Shaw which had been identified as Public Open Space.

This report had been presented to the District Executive for consultation purposes following a request by councillor Howard Sykes.

Members discussed the impact that the disposal of the site on the area. Planning applications to develop the public open space on the site had previously been refused and this was a key plot on a major route through the area.

Elected Members confirmed that previous administrations had given verbal assurances that the site of Matthias Pilling House would be redeveloped for social housing for the elderly (i.e. its previous use).

Concerns were also raised regarding the reduction of Public Open Space in the area if the disposal continued as detailed in the report as there was a severe lack of open public space in Shaw.

The Meeting resolved that::

1. The District Executive opposed the sale of the land on the site of the former Matthias Pilling House on the open market;

2. Should the decision be made to sell the land, the District Executive recommended that the site of the former Matthias Pilling House be sold in order to provide social housing for older members of the community;

3. The District Executive recommended that the area of Public Open Space adjoining the site of the former Matthias Pilling House not be included in any disposal.

Questions (allowed max of three) I asked at Oldham Council meeting Wed 23rd October 13

Q1. The Armed Forces Covenant – and Oldham Council’s Commitment:
This Council has a long history of working on a cross-party basis to recognise the commitment, dedication and, tragically on occasions, self-sacrifice of citizens of this Borough who are or have been service personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces or in the emergency services.

This has included awarding the honorary title of Freemen of the Borough to members of the Royal Tank Regiment, supporting the retention of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and endorsing the Royal British Legion Manifesto and the Government’s Armed Forces Covenant.

In recent months, my colleague, Councillor John McCann, has proposed, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, that streets be named in this Borough after fallen service personnel and that ex-service personnel seeking employment with this Council be offered guaranteed interviews.

I am pleased to say that these two proposals have found favour with my fellow councillors.

With Remembrance Sunday next month and the 100th anniversary of the commencement of the First World War next year, I therefore welcome the recent announcement by the Leader to implement measures to make the Council’s commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant a reality at a local level.

My first question to the Leader tonight comes in three parts:
a) Could he please outline for Council what presently these measures will be?
b) Will he charge a cabinet member with responsibility for championing these measures, as has been done by neighbouring Rochdale, for example?
c) Will he be happy to support my call for overview and scrutiny board to identify best practice from other local authorities that can be adopted here and to consult with relevant organisations in our Borough for their recommendations, such as veterans’ associations and charities which provide support for ex-service personnel?

Q2. Recent Stabbing and Lack of PCSOs:
I am sure that the Leader will join me in condemning the recent stabbing in Shaw.

For many months (over 12 in fact), ward members have both at district meetings and at meetings with the police reported recurring instances of anti-social and intimidating behaviour by a gang of young offenders in central Shaw, and have repeatedly demanded action.

Despite the police undertaking undercover operations, I am convinced that the lack of visibility of PCSOs in Shaw has meant that this gang has operated without apparent interference for months (that is what the public think) – and this unsatisfactory situation has now led to this stabbing.

The Leader may recall that at last December’s Council I asked him to join me in condemning a change in procedure requiring Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) to parade at Oldham Police Station prior to deployment to their assigned beat?

This has meant that PCSOs have less time on the beat to actually detect crime, apprehend criminals and help the public as they now have to travel between central Oldham and Royton, Shaw and elsewhere, rather than simply reporting for duty on their beat at the start of a shift.
In Shaw, this has resulted in us now hardly ever seeing any PCSO’s in our town centre, and the public have noticed and regularly comment about this fact at every opportunity.

At December’s Council, the Leader agreed that a meeting should be arranged for Group Leaders to discuss our concerns about the new arrangements with the Police.

This appears not to have happened?

In light of the recent incident in Shaw, can I again request that the Leader agree to arrange such a meeting as a matter of urgency?

Q3. Regulating Chuggers:

In this chamber in the recent past, we have had a number of discussions about how we can revitalise and support our high street.

I hope that the Leader will agree with me that one of the irritants deterring shoppers from returning to our town centre is being accosted by one of the many fund-raisers (known less affectionately as ‘chuggers’, or charity muggers) who seem ever prevalent on our high street?

Although sporting garments advertising whichever charity of the day they are promoting, many of these individuals are in fact employed by agencies.

These agencies operate for profit through taking a fee from funds raised and in turn pay commission to the fund-raiser.

Can the Leader please tell Council what is being done by this Administration to regulate the activities of these ‘fund-raisers’, in particular to ensure that shoppers and visitors to our town are not harassed and that 100% of the money raised goes directly to the charity?

Planning a basic guide

Councillor Chris Stephens Chair of Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Planning Committee wrote the following article. I have posted it on my web site as I think it will be of interest to you all.

Several residents have expressed concern regarding the general lack of information about planning processes within Oldham Borough.

It can be disconcerting to find that a neighbour, business, school, farm, or other organisation in your neighbourhood has applied for a planning application which may range from a simple house extension up to a major property development or significant business change/ implementation.

Concerns over privacy, loss of amenity, noise, additional traffic movements, parking and environmental issues often have a significant impact on resident’s lives.

The process of finding out about a planning application can appear to be disharmonised; the purpose of this article is to provide some basic information on the planning process.

Information about larger planning applications generally appears in the local press, particularly for those which may have a major impact on the local neighbourhood.

Applications which affect fewer residents, such as home or shop extensions, business change uses, are not necessarily widely publicised. Generally Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (OMBC) will send out notification letters to properties adjacent to the proposed application.

The letter will contain details of the planning application together with information where the plans may be inspected (usually the Civic Centre) and dates by which objections may be forwarded to OMBC.

However, OMBC are not obliged to send out letters but they do have an obligation to post a notice about a residential planning application adjacent to the property; this is generally a pink coloured notice often placed upon a lamppost outside the property.

If you see such a notice within your vicinity please ensure you take the time to read it. If you are concerned, or need advice, about the application it is recommended you contact a Parish or OMBC councillor about the issue as soon as possible.

All planning applications within the Parish of Shaw and Crompton are notified to the Parish Council.

A list of such applications is on display in the window of the Parish Council Office at 1 Kershaw Street East, Shaw.

Applications are on display for only about 1 week prior to the Parish Council Planning Committee meeting.

Residents are able to make representation to the Parish Council; public participation is encouraged as views from people living and working in the area are important to the decision making process.

Dates and times of meetings are displayed in the Parish Council office. Members of the public wishing to speak on a planning issue should advise the clerk of the Parish Council prior to the meeting.

The Parish Planning Committee does not make a final decision on approval or rejection of an application but it makes a recommendation to OMBC on acceptance or refusal based on planning laws as well as taking into consideration any public representations.

OMBC may take into account the Parish recommendations when making their own decision on the application.

Members of the public are also permitted to make a presentation to OMBC Planning Committee on planning applications although only one person may speak against the application and only one may speak in support. Additionally a time limit is imposed on speakers at Borough planning meetings.

For further information on the planning process please contact Cllr Chris Stephens: 0775 296 8201 or the Parish Office 01706 847590.
Also further information on the planning process is available at:
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200351/planning

Lib Dem Motion to prevent betting shops taking over the High Street

Date: 9th July 2013

Oldham Lib Dems have proposed that the Council write to Government ministers urging them to take action to introduce new legislation to curb the increase in planning applications for new betting shops in the Borough.

Councillor Howard Sykes, Leader of the Opposition on Oldham Council and Leader of the Lib Dem Group, and Cllr Rod Blyth, Shadow Cabinet Member for Social Care and Public Health, have proposed a motion to the next Council meeting on Wednesday 17th July outlining the concerns of the Liberal Democrat Group:

“This Council notes with great concern the proliferation of betting shops on our high street and the clustering of betting shops in particular areas.

Currently, under planning legislation, betting shops are placed in Use Class A2, grouped alongside banks, estate agents and other financial services. This means they can open up in any building that was previously in the A2 Use Class or the A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Pubs and Bars) and A5 (Hot Food Takeaways) without the need for any planning permission.

The Portas Review, published in December 2011, proposed to change the planning use class of betting shops from Class “A2” to sui generis (a category all of its own). This would mean that every new betting shop would require full planning permission.

Regrettably under the 2005 Gambling Act enacted by the previous Labour Government, Councils are prevented from considering the existing number of gambling licences when approving a new licence.

This Council resolves to:

Ask the Chief Executive to write to the ministers with responsibility for this area – the Minister for Communities and Local Government, The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles, MP and the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, The Rt. Hon. Maria Miller MP – requesting that the Government:

1. Repeals the relevant section of the 2005 Act so that Councils may consider the number of existing gambling licences when considering any new application for a licence

2. Implements the recommendation from the Mary Portas Review to make betting shops a separate Use Class for planning purposes.

– Work with other AGMA local authorities to establish a common approach to this issue”.

Cllr. Sykes said: “Liberal Democrats want to see Government adopt the recommendations outlined in the review commissioned from high street retail expert Mary Portas. Ms Portas made a strong case that betting shops should be in a planning class all of their own so that every new premises would require full planning permission giving time for proper scrutiny and offering the public and Councillors an opportunity to object.

At present, legislation enacted by the last Labour Government also prevents local Councils from considering the number of existing premises in an area when granting a new licence. Our motion also calls on Government to repeal this aspect of the current legislation”.

In support of his colleague, fellow Shaw Lib Dem Councillor Rod Blyth said: “Research has demonstrated a link between gambling addiction and a range of health and social problems including alcoholism, substance abuse and crime. We want to see a diverse range of shops on our High Street as part of a vibrant and attractive retail offer to attract a wide-range of customers to our district centres.

There have recently been high profile planning applications for new betting shops in both Hollinwood and Chadderton that have been opposed by ward councillors and by the public on the grounds that there are enough already and that having too many in one area causes a problem in itself”.

Council meeting 6th Feb – Question to the Leader of the Council on Statues and Public Art

I am sure that the Leader will agree that public art in Oldham borough has had a chequered past?

Indeed I am proud that as Leader I got rid of the awful water feature in our town centre that had never worked and was a blight on our high street and an embarrassment to the Council and shoppers alike.

We will all welcome the sight of Metrolink trams running along Union Street, and we all want a good built environment, but at a time of austerity and cuts in services, isn’t it madness to spend up to half a million pounds on public art and statues?

Oldham’s Council Tax Payers, already hit in the pocket with a 3.5% rise from April, have different priorities for their hard-earned money and will simply see this as a wasteful indulgence and extravagance on the part of this Labour Administration that we can ill afford.

Howard Sykes
6th Feb 2013

Council meeting 6th Feb – Question to the Leader of the Council on the Acorn Business Centre

The Leader has made much of his recent trip to London at which prospective investors were assured that Oldham is ‘open for business’.

I was therefore very disturbed to hear that the licensees in the Acorn Business Centre in Derker have been given only a month’s notice by the Council to vacate their premises and relocate.

One businessman has told me that he feels badly let down by this Council – he describes what he considers to be (and I quote) “dirty goings on” and feels the situation is “a disgrace”.

In a heartfelt plea, his partner stated:

“We have no other property to locate to and run our company on such a tight shoe string that we would not be able to afford to relocate”.

In a press article yesterday, Cllr Hibbert said that the Acorn Business Centre is let by the Council from the owner, that it has been running at a ‘significant cost’ to the authority and requires investment.

Given this situation the Council must have decided many months ago that the lease would not be renewed, so why were the licensees not informed as soon as the decision was made and offered a package of assistance and support to successfully relocate?

By taking this course of action, this Administration has needlessly jeopardised small businesses and jobs – the very lifeblood of our local economy – and shown that it is in fact far from ‘open for business, which is a great shame.

Howard Sykes
6th Feb 2013

Council meeting 6th Feb – Question to the Leader of the Council on Town Centre Free Car Parking

We all wish to see a thriving town centre retail economy, but will the Leader:

– inform Council how much revenue will be lost to the authority at a time of cuts to Council services as a result of the free car parking initiative?

– Also will he outline the evidence that supports this Administration’s view that this represents a value-for-money measure that will bring more shoppers into our town?

– And is the most cost effective way of supporting the Oldham Town Centre?

Howard Sykes
6th Feb 2013

SHAW BLAST UPDATE – DECEMBER 2012

Over recent weeks, we have been putting insurance companies under pressure to agree the repair works to individual properties and this has resulted in works starting to quite a few houses and some owners moving back in. However, some owners have still to provide the necessary estimates, which is holding up progress. In the meantime, we have maintained tight security on site to reduce the likelihood of homes being broken into.

Oldham Distress Fund

All money donated to the Oldham Distress Fund will be used to directly benefit residents affected.

A full list of donations made to date can be found at www.oldham.gov.uk

To date £300,000 has been donated. Around £230,000 of this has already been committed to affected residents. Applications to the distress fund, continue to be approved by Trustees and paid quickly to ensure repairs can be made.

So far the fund has successfully helped 91 households to cope with the impact of the explosion and we have received a lot of positive feedback on how the situation was handled.

Demolition/site update

Numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and13 Buckley St. have been demolished. They were either dangerous and unsafe or beyond reasonable repair. Some of the owners of these homes have now settled with their insurers and moved to other areas. We wish them well in their new homes.

Insurers are still considering the future of some the remaining properties. If they decide that more demolitions will take place, the insurance company will inform the home owner.

Any further demolitions will be organised by the insurance company who will appoint their own contractors.

What will happen to the cleared site?

The site freeholder is waiting to see what happens with the remaining homes. Once that situation is clear, we will engage with him to share his views with residents on his plans for the site.

Round the clock security remains on site. We are reviewing the need this security as some residents are moving back and we need to make the site more accessible.