On the 20th July Oldham Pride will be celebrating 20 years of equality and diversity with a huge party and parade!
At 12pm the parade will leave from outside Billingtons on Ascroft St and snake its way through Oldham Town Centre before arriving at the Queen Elizabeth Hall around 12:45 for the start of the party, market stalls, bar, food, rides and activities for all.
The parade will be led by a samba band followed by Oldham Pride with Fifi Olivia The Pink Owl and many other organisations, mascots, acts and representatives from local groups.
Cllr. Hamblett who is the Current Chair of Oldham Pride said:
“Oldham Pride is so much more than a celebration; it has also traditionally been a protest. It is a way to demand better in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights and a way to express the freedom to love without being oppressed and judged for it.”
He continued by saying: “It is a way to celebrate how far we have come and to bring all sides of our amazing borough together to celebrate, educate and show we don’t tolerate hate.
Twenty years seems such a long time and it’s surprising to see how much has happened but we have so much more to overcome if we are to live in a place that accepts people from every background.”
Councillor Hamblett finished by saying:
“I cannot thank our volunteers from Oldham Pride Committee enough, the support from the Council, our sponsors, those who donated gifts and all who are attending – each and every one of you help to make Pride very special.
I look forward to seeing everyone at Oldham and hope everyone enjoys themselves at what should be a fabulous event.”
There will also be a Sunday service at Oldham Parish Church as well as an artisan market and live music at Billingtons also on the Sunday to continue the Pride weekend.
Briefing Note: Peter Richards, Head of Planning, Oldham Council
Many will already be aware of proposals by communications operators to install new infrastructure in Oldham that have emerged in recent months. In particular, one operator (IX Wireless) is proposing to roll-out a whole new set of infrastructure across much of the urban area of Oldham to support their Wireless Broadband service, and this has gained a great deal of attention from residents directly affected by the location of new infrastructure near to their homes. However, IX Wireless are not the only operator seeking to install new infrastructure.
I emailed all councillors on 22 March 2023 with an initial update on IX Wireless’ proposals and how we as a Council has to consider those proposals – see link below.
This briefing note necessarily focuses on IX Wireless’ proposals (as their proposals are extensive and attracting the most attention with residents) but please note that the technical planning, highways and communications guidance in this note applies to other operators as well.
What is Electronic Communications Infrastructure?
Electronic communications services (such as landlines, mobile phones and internet services) are now regarded as essential services. In order that these services can be provided where they are needed, The Electronic Communications Code (‘Code’) provides a statutory basis whereby communications providers (known in this context as ‘Operators’) can place their Apparatus on land or buildings owned by another person or organisation.
In view of the ever increasing and critical needs of local communities (and the UK economy as a whole) to have access to 21st century communications networks, such as high speed broadband connection or a 4G mobile connection (and 5G in due course), the Code has been reformed under the Digital Economy Act 2017 so as to make it more straightforward for Operators to gain access to the locations they need, to improve coverage, capability and capacity.
(paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of Ofcom’s Electronic Communications Code – Code of Practice, December 2017[1])
An Operator is an organisation which has been granted Code Powers by Ofcom, for example, a communications provider that is providing a landline, broadband, cable or mobile network, or a person who provides infrastructure which supports such a network. A list of those with Code Powers is maintained by Ofcom.
Electronic communications apparatus includes such items as antenna for mobile signals, masts, cabinets, cables, ducts and telegraph poles, and together they create the infrastructure which allows the technology to operate and provide a service to customers (residents and businesses). Apparatus such as the above is clearly already in place across Oldham, but the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) enables Operators to install additional apparatus, where needed, more easily to secure the improvements to electronic communications networks that are required.
Operators are required under the Code to consider if they can utilise existing apparatus where possible and reasonable to do so to provide their service, but there can be technical and practical reasons why an Operator might need to install their own, new apparatus, including to provide better and faster broadband services as demand for this continues to grow.
Another useful set of guidance to be aware of in relation to this is the Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England[2], most recently updated by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport in March 2022.
What are IX Wireless’ proposals?
IX Wireless are looking to roll-out a particular form of “wireless” broadband across Greater Manchester (having already done so in parts of Lancashire, including Blackburn and Blackpool) that will enable 6G connectivity and does not involve fibre to the premises as it relies on antenna and receivers.
At our request, IX Wireless have prepared a pack of information for Oldham councillors to explain more on what their proposals are, how their infrastructure works and what services they are looking to provide to Oldham. I attach that information to this briefing note at Annex 1, as it explains their approach better than I am able to.
In terms of the locations where IX Wireless are proposing to roll-out their infrastructure and services, the plans in the attached pack are indicative, but their proposals involve most of the urban area of the borough, from Failsworth in the south to Shaw in the north, and from Chadderton in the west to Springhead in the east. IX Wireless have notified us of the extent of the infrastructure network they propose to create, but the council is not able to share the detailed location of the apparatus and wider infrastructure network, as it must remain confidential for commercial and security reasons.
The vast majority of the apparatus involves telegraph poles (usually timber poles of 8-10m in height, though they can be larger and sometimes made of metal) and cables connecting from pole to pole. IX Wireless are proposing approximately 860 new telegraph poles across the borough. However, the particular form of wireless broadband service provision that IX Wireless provide also involves what they call a monopole or street pole, which is a larger metal pole (usually around 15m in height) that is capable of holding an antenna and usually has a cabinet at its base and is connected to nearby telegraph poles with cables. There will be far fewer of these monopoles (49), but they are potentially much more visually intrusive than a telegraph pole, depending on the location.
IX Wireless have also written to residents affected in the areas where they are rolling-out their infrastructure first. This initial roll-out is focused more on the telegraph poles. Their letters are addressed to “The Occupier” so there is a concern some residents may have overlooked these letters without opening them or reading them properly.
Is this happening just in Oldham?
IX Wireless are gradually rolling out their infrastructure across Greater Manchester, having already done so in parts of Lancashire. The Greater Manchester authorities and GMCA are liaising with one another and with operators (including IX Wireless). Officers from all the authorities have met jointly with IX Wireless to encourage them to communicate more effectively and to try and establish a consistency in approach across Greater Manchester in how we engage with them.
How does the Council get involved in, or influence, these proposals?
There are three main areas of legislation that the council need to have regard to in how they consider proposals for new communications infrastructure:
Planning,
Highways, and
the Electronic Communications Code.
However, it must be stressed that the council actually has very little influence or control in all of these areas when it comes to proposals for communications infrastructure. As such, when responding to queries from residents about such proposals, it is important that councillors try to manage residents’ expectations of what the council can influence in the proposals and explain how limited the council is when it comes to such proposals.
Taking the three main areas in turn:
Planning
Virtually all of the new apparatus that a company like IX Wireless is looking to install falls under permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)[3] – nationally-set rights that allow certain forms of development in certain circumstances to be developed without needing to apply for planning permission. Operators know this, and they design and locate their apparatus to ensure it falls within these permitted development rights. There are typically two types of permitted development of relevance to communications apparatus.
For apparatus such as telegraph poles and their cables, the council as local planning authority has no control at all, and the operators can simply go ahead and install the infrastructure as long as they comply with the requirements set out for this type of permitted development in the GPDO.
For apparatus such as the larger monopoles and street poles, the council has advised IX Wireless (and other operators) that these constitute a “mast” under the GPDO, because they are specifically designed to accommodate an antenna. A “mast” is treated a little differently under the GPDO and requires an operator to seek what is known as “prior approval” for the mast.
Prior Approval is not a planning application, because the proposal is still permitted development, but the operator must submit their plans to the council as local planning authority for consideration before they can implement their plans. However, we can only consider the matters of “siting” and “visual appearance” in the context of the location, and so we can only really influence the proposals to ensure that the apparatus is located in a way that minimises the visual intrusion as much as possible. We cannot refuse the prior approval on grounds of the principle of the development or the need for the apparatus, as this has already been established as acceptable in principle under national planning legislation.
As IX Wireless prepare their plans for these larger monopoles and street poles, they are providing officers (in planning and highways) opportunity to feedback on their suggestions, allowing us to positively influence the location and siting of these poles before they submit for prior approval, and so minimise the impact as best we can. IX Wireless do not have to do this, so are working positively with officers in this way.
When the council do receive a prior approval application, we as local planning authority will notify the local community through a site notice displayed close to the site of the proposed mast and / or a letter to those properties directly adjacent to the site. The plans go on our website as well. Interested parties can submit comments on the plans for us to consider, but we can only take account of comments related to the matters of siting and visual appearance.
Given the above, under planning legislation, there is very little the council can do to influence or control the proposals of communications operators, but officers are working with IX Wireless to influence the proposals positively where we can.
Highways
Much of the apparatus that an operator might want to install needs to be located on adopted highway, usually within a pavement or a highway verge. As a result, an operator must apply to the council as highways authority for a permit to undertake works on the adopted highway. This process is merely to ensure that the actual works are to be done in a safe manner and will not affect highway or pedestrian safety, and that the surface of the adopted highway will be reinstated once the works are complete. The permit application is not an opportunity for the council to raise concerns about the principle of needing the apparatus or to question the suitability of the broad location for the apparatus.
As such, under highway legislation, there is also very little the council can do to influence or control the proposals of communications operators, except to ensure that the works they do undertake are done safely and to a suitable standard so as to ensure the adopted highway is still safe and functional.
The Electronic Communications Code
The Electronic Communications Code is found in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003 and is supported by the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003. The Code is a set of rights that are designed to facilitate the installation and maintenance of electronic communications networks.
The Code confers rights on providers of such networks and on providers of systems of infrastructure (i.e., operators) to install and maintain apparatus on, under and over land and results in considerably simplified planning procedures. Ofcom are responsible for enforcing this legislation with operators. Ofcom’s website[4] provides some useful information in relation to the Code.
The Minister for Science, Innovation & Technology recently wrote to local planning authorities reminding them of the role that Ofcom play in enforcing the Code and encouraging local planning authorities to report any evidence of operators not complying with the Code (see letter included at Annex 2). However, to report an operator to Ofcom in this way, the council would need site-specific evidence to support any report of non-compliance and this can be difficult to evidence given how flexibly the Code and its Regulations can be interpreted.
The Regulations cover various matters which residents and councillors have raised with me in relation to IX Wireless’ proposals. The following table provides a quick summary of some of the main queries and what the regulations say about them.
Query
What the Regulations say
Comments
Why are IX Wireless installing new poles and cables – shouldn’t they share existing apparatus already in place?
Regulation 3, para 4 states: “A code operator, where practicable, shall share the use of electronic communications apparatus.” Regulation 3, para 5 states: “A code operator shall install the minimum practicable number of items of electronic communications apparatus consistent with the intended provision of electronic communications services and allowing for an estimate of growth in demand for such services.”
The key phrase in regulation 3(4) here is “where practicable”. The regulation provides for the option of not sharing apparatus, if it is not practicable. Regulation 3(5) goes on to clarify that installing new apparatus should be kept to the minimum needed to provide the intended services and accounting for the growth in demand. Therefore, taking these two paragraphs together, the regulations do allow the provision of new infrastructure where it is not practicable to share, where it is needed to provide the intended services and to meet growing demand for those services.
Why can’t IX Wireless put their cables under the ground?
Regulation 4, para 1 states: “A code operator shall install all lines underground unless— (a) the line is flown from a pole in an area where service lines are already flown from poles; … (e) it is not in all the circumstances reasonably practicable to do so.”
Regulation 4 allows new lines of cable to flown from a pole in an area where this already happens, and this would cover many of the streets IX Wireless are proposing to install new poles and lines on. Even where this isn’t the case, if it is not practicable to put cable lines underground, the operator does not have to, according to Regulation 4(1)(e). Installing cables under the ground costs a great deal more, and so it would become a financial decision as to whether it is practicable to install cable lines underground, as the added cost may make the business model unsustainable for an operator.
Have IX Wireless notified the council of their intention to install new apparatus? If they have, why have the council not notified local residents and sought their input on the proposals?
Regulation 5, para 1 states: “A code operator must give one calendar month’s notice, in writing, to the planning authority for the area in question …”
IX Wireless have met this regulation, given that they notified us well in advance of their overall planned programme. This notification is not part of planning legislation, and it is just to notify the council as local planning authority where the operator intends to install apparatus under permitted development rights. As such, it is not an application, and the council cannot “refuse” permission for it, therefore there is no legal framework that allows us to in turn notify local residents or seek their input into the proposals, as the council are not making a decision to permit or refuse the proposals.
Have the Council provided any conditions that IX Wireless must adhere to when installing their apparatus?
Regulation 5, para 3 states: “Where a code operator has given notice under paragraph (1), the planning authority may, within one calendar month of the receipt of that notice, give the code operator written notice of conditions with which the planning authority wishes him to comply in respect of the installation of the apparatus, but he is not obliged to comply with those conditions to the extent that they are unreasonable in all the circumstances.”
The council can provide conditions to operators in the way described by regulation 5(3), but these must relate to “the installation of apparatus” – i.e., to how they install the apparatus, not where the apparatus is located or its visual appearance. As such, the council utilises the highway permit application process to guide the “how” of the installation, rather than providing a generic set of conditions across the entire proposed network when more specific requirements may be necessary on a site-by-site basis.
Summary
Hopefully this briefing note has provided a helpful overview to you of the background to electronic communications infrastructure and provided more specific detail on IX Wireless’ proposals across the borough, that will aid you as you field queries from your constituents.
Ultimately, the council is very limited in what it can influence on such proposals, particularly in relation to planning legislation, and whilst the Electronic Communications Code does set some expectations for how operators should consider installing new apparatus, it is Ofcom who enforce that Code and we would require site-specific evidence that an operator has not complied with the regulations governing the Code in order to report them to Ofcom. At this time, we have seen no such evidence of how IX Wireless have not complied with the Code.
Land to the South of Lilac View Close and to the West of the Road Knowl, Shaw – Erection of 21 no. residential dwellings with associated landscaping and highways works.
Following the planning meeting on Wednesday 17 July I am pleased to report the application has been refused.
Some Key points from the meeting.
Lisa Smirk spoke very well on behalf of residents, and I also spoke as Ward Councillor. I am sure between us we managed to convince the Committee of the detrimental impact this proposed development would have on this area.
It was quite a battle as the developer asked for it to be deferred and several Councillors (all Labour) wanted that course of action. However, given the strength of feeling displayed by the Councillors supporting the refusal on the Committee the Developer did not win on this occasion.
On the final vote the matter was refused (six votes to four), again the four against refusal were Labour.
A further reason for refusal was a lack of highway detail of the proposed development. This was added to the reasons for refusal along with the unwillingness of the developer to pay a lump sum for public open space (the original reason for refusal) as per planning policy on all such developments.
This is a clear victory for common sense.
I suspect this will not be the last we hear about developing this site and I am sure a new planning application will be submitted.
Pleased to report that this barrier will now be repaired, following attempts to break it, by the thoughtless fly-tippers. Anybody with any information about these anti-social people please let me know. We must not let these people blight our area.
More Overnight closures on Oldham Way – 14 nights from 15 July (8pm – 5am).
I have been informed Oldham Way will be closed overnight in both directions for 14 nights from Monday 15 July.
The closures – between Manchester St roundabout and Prince St – are from 8pm—5am.
Contractors will be carrying out surveys on the structure and checking drainage below the carriageway is working and fit for purpose. Essential street lighting maintenance will also take place, preventing further disruption in the future.
Liberal Democrats await answers to questions after Labour cut council meeting short to watch the football
Oldham Liberal Democrat Leader councillor Howard Sykes is waiting for a response to his two leader’s questions submitted for last night’s Full Council meeting (10/07).
The time allocated to leader’s questions and questions to Cabinet Members was axed by the ruling Labour Group so that the meeting could end in time for councillors to watch England take on the Netherlands in the Euros.
Councillor Sykes said, “I asked two important questions. The first was about cuts made by the administration to the Environmental Services team who look after our parks and green spaces. In recent months the number of complaints about weeds, missing bins and the general state of neglect in our parks has rocketed.”
“My second question was about Greater Manchester Police’s failed IT system, which continues to frustrate officers and slow investigations. I have asked the Leader if she would push Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham not to pass the cost onto the public by hiking his council tax precepts yet again.”
After the decision to cut the meeting short was voted through by Labour and their Shaw and Failsworth Independent coalition partners, it was agreed that questions could be submitted in writing and a written response would be published within a week.
Councillor Sykes said, “It remains to be seen how long we’ll be waiting for a response and the quality of that response. The point of these questions is to question and challenge the administration to provide answers and to put them under the spotlight and hold them to account.”
“I am not surprised that the Labour leadership have tried to hide behind the football. But I do think a lot of people in Oldham will be furious that some Independent councillors have backed them to do it. Is that really why people voted Independent? To make life easier for Labour councillors?”
Thank you, Mr Mayor, At this year’s budget meeting in February, the Labour Group slashed funding for our Environmental Services. They told us all that their cuts wouldn’t have any impact on the services our residents receive. Now that we’re in July it’s a very different story. Over the last few weeks, we’ve had disappearing bins in Dunwood Park.
Weeds growing out of control while the Council still can’t find a contractor. To deal with that, they’ve moved over staff from our parks and street sweeping making both look unloved and shabby and that work is now not done.
We’re well into summer now and long past the longest day, yet our barrier planters haven’t been replanted for summer, and I suspect they will not be. And as usual no one has the curtesy to even let us know.
This Council has an appalling record when it comes to environmental crime.
It is well documented that under Labour, this Council has failed to enforce littering, fly-tipping and dog fouling offences.
Just look at all the figures they speak for themselves please quote for all three offences for the last 2-3 years and prove me wrong? And that was before these recent cuts and job losses that Labour delivered in their budget and which some of the so-called Independents now clearly support. So, does the Leader still stand by what she said?
Does she think Labour’s cuts have no impact on people?
Or does she accept that her administration is failing on the very basics, leaving Oldham Borough looking shabby and neglected?
Q2 Leaders Question: Greater Manchester Police iOps 10/07/24
Thank you, Mr Mayor, Police officers and victims of crime across Oldham Borough and Greater Manchester continue to be let down because of GMP’s defective iOps IT system. iOps has been backed by the GM Mayor Andy Burnham with a whopping £29 million pounds of public money and counting. But police officers have complained to me about repeated failures since iOps was introduced in 2019. It takes ages to load, it crashes repeatedly, and it has even hidden data out of sight. Due to its failings, offenders have escaped prosecution and the victims of crime have been failed. Not for nothing has it been called i-Oops and i-Flops. IT failings were recognised to have played a role in the chaos that pushed Greater Manchester Police into special measures in 2021.
Yet despite promises to scrap failing systems, GMP have stuck with iOps and officers and victims may have to put up with it for at least another year. What conversations is the Leader having with Greater Manchester Police and Mayor Burnham over these failings?
When will iOps finally be replaced and the public of Greater Manchester get the policing service they are long overdue? What is being done to ensure that data relating to the most serious crimes is being recorded and treated in a way that the public can have confidence in? And crucially, who is going to pay the price for these failures? Will she agree tonight to push Mayor Burnham not to put the cost onto the shoulders of the public by hiking his council tax precepts for policing yet again?
Councillor Howard Sykes MBE, Liberal Democrat and Opposition Leader on Oldham Council said, “The new government can use any language they like. But it doesn’t change the realities on the ground in Oldham Borough.”
“We need new affordable housing in the areas people want to live. That means making use of brownfield land and ex-industrial sites.”
“A Green Belt land grab does nothing to get young people onto the housing ladder. It only creates unaffordable housing to maximise developer profit. Green Belt is Green belt and there for a very good reason it exists – calling it Grey Belt is smoke screen and disingenuous.”
Oldham Council leadership blasted for cutting first meeting of the year by two hours so that they can watch the football.
Oldham Liberal Democrat Leader councillor Howard Sykes has blasted Labour and so-called Independent councillors for cutting the Council Meeting (10/07/24) short by two hours to watch the football.
Councillor Sykes said, “I think the public will be absolutely furious that Labour suggested this.”
“Why is it that members of the Labour Group and the so-called Independents (FiPs and S&C) think they are so much better than ordinary people?”
Tonight’s full council meeting (10/07) was the first of only six voting meetings of the full council that take place each year. It coincided with England’s Euro semi-final showdown against the Netherlands. Labour councillors have proposed axing the time allowed for Opposition questions to the Leader and her Cabinet to allow for an early finish. They say they will do it all in writing after the meeting.
Councillor Sykes said, “Don’t get me wrong, I would love to go home and watch England. But the fact is we only have six Full Council meetings a year.”
“That’s six opportunities to hold those in power to account. I’m sorry, but people expect us to do our job. Most people in Oldham Borough don’t have the luxury of clocking off early just because they want to. I see no reason for councillors to behave any differently.”
“It’s certainly not ok for the ruling party to use the England match as an excuse to cut the time that opposition councillors use to hold them to account.”
