Oldham Borough Council Council Meeting Wednesday 2 February 2011

Oldham Borough Council

Council Meeting Wednesday 2 February 2011

OLDHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL

To: ALL MEMBERS OF OLDHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL, CIVIC CENTRE, OLDHAM

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Council which will be held on Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 6.00 pm in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, for the following purposes:

1 To receive apologies for absence.

2 To order that the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 15th December 2010 be signed as a correct record. (Pages 1 - 54)

3 To receive declarations of interest in any matter to be determined at the meeting.

4 To deal with matters which the Mayor considers to be urgent business.

5 To receive communications relating to the business of the Council.

To receive a presentation from representatives of Oldham Youth Council.

6 To note petitions received relating to the business of the Council. (Pages 55 - 56)

7 To deal with any topical issues agreed by the Mayor

8 To receive and consider questions and related comments from residents of the Borough about any matters relevant to the functions of the Council

(time limit 20 minutes).

9 Outstanding Business from the last meeting

(time limit 20 minutes).

This Council regrets the proposed cuts in Disability Living Allowances which will make disabled people living in residential homes worse off by an average of £33 per week.

This Council resolves to write to our 3 MPs requesting they lobby Mr Iain Duncan Smith the Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions asking him to reconsider this proposal which will isolate these vulnerable people who presently use this money to get out to take part in activities.

10 Motions of Opposition Business

(time limit 30 minutes) . a) Proposed by Councillor McMahon seconded by Councillor Hibbert This council believes the behaviour of Communities and Local Government Minister RT Hon. Eric Pickles MP has damaged the relationship between central and local government. This council supports the stance of Councillor Richard Kemp, Leader of Local Government Liberal Democrats in his view that Eric Pickles should be sacked. This council also believes Mr Pickles should be removed as Vice President of the Local Government Association. This council therefore instructs the Chief Executive to: 1. Write to Councillor Baroness Margaret Eaton DBE, Chair of Local Government Association to advise her of this council’s position and to inform the executive of this member council’s view that Mr Pickles should not be allowed to continue as Vice President of the LGC.

2. Write to all boroughs’ MPs to advise them of this council’s position and ask that they support our stance.

3. Write to Rt. Hon David Cameron MP and Rt. Hon Nick Clegg to advise them of this council’s position and ask that they consider the continuing breakdown in relations between the minister and local authorities. b) Proposed by Councillor Butterworth seconded by Councillor Akhtar

Critics argue that abolishing EMA will lead to thousands of teenagers giving up their studies, Andy Burnham, the shadow education secretary, recently said that the decision to scrap EMA ‘stacks the odds’ against the poor and that young people see a government that is kicking away the ladder of opportunity. The EMA provides a weekly payment of between £10 and £30 to the poorest 16-18 year olds living in households earning under £31,000 per year. 650,000 students who receive the maintenance come from homes where household income is less than £20,800. Jobless figures released on 19 th January pushed the youth unemployment rate up to the highest level since records began in 1992. It is estimated that around 78,000 young people are unlikely to be able to stay in further education without EMA. This Council resolves to:-

• Write to Simon Hughes MP in his new role of ‘’advocate for access to higher education’’ urging him to report urgently on the establishment of a fair system to replace EMA which has now been scrapped.

• Write to the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education to inform him of the detrimental effect the scrapping of EMA for hundreds of people in our Borough will have.

• This Council states that: - Cancelling the EMA scheme is fundamentally unfair and premature. Furthermore this Council informs the secretary of state that scrapping EMA before a fair system to replace it has been proposed, consulted upon and approved by parliament, is not in the best interest of 16 year olds from low income families in Oldham, who wish to stay on in Education.

11 To note the Minutes of the following Joint Authority and Oldham Partnership meetings and the relevant spokespersons to respond to questions from Members (Pages 57 - 106)

(time limit 20 minutes):-

Greater Manchester Waste Disposal 12 th November 2010 Authority

Greater Manchester Police Authority 22 nd November 2010

Association of Greater Manchester 26 th November 2010 Authorities Executive 17 th December 2010

Greater Manchester Integrated Transport 15 th October 2010 Authority

Unity Partnership Board 24 th November 2010

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue 9th December 2010 Authority

12 Cabinet Question Time

a) To receive any written questions to Cabinet Members (time limit 10 minutes).

b) To receive answers from a Cabinet Member to the written questions received (time limit 10 minutes)

13 To note the Minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet held on the undermentioned dates, including the attached list of urgent key decisions taken since the last meeting of the Council, and to receive any questions on any items within the Minutes from Members of the Council who are not Members of the Cabinet (Pages 107 - 122)

(time limit 15 minutes) :-

a) 8 th December 2010 b) 22 nd December 2010 c) Urgent Key decisions between 8 th December 2010 and 22 nd December 2010 14 To receive responses to the questions raised from appropriate Cabinet Members to questions raised in 13 above

(time limit 15 minutes).

15 To receive observations on any items within the Minutes of the Cabinet received above from Members of the Council who are not Members of the Cabinet

(time limit – 20 minutes – the last 5 minutes reserved for the Leader of the main opposition group).

16 To receive comments from appropriate Cabinet Members to observations made above

(time limit – 25 minutes – last 5 minutes reserved for the Leader of the Council).

17 Notices of Motion

(time limit 30 minutes) .

a) Councillor to Williamson to MOVE and Councillor Heffernan to SECOND.

This Council notes the recent announcement by the Coalition Government to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs).

This Council also notes that the Coalition Government have made clear their intention to replace the Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) with a more targeted Allowance regime for 2011/12.

This Council therefore resolves

That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Secretary of State for Education seeking early detail and clarity on the proposed new allowance scheme.

b) Councillor Alcock to MOVE and Councillor Roughley to SECOND .

This Council welcomes the recent statement on the Postal Services Bill by the Minister for Postal Affairs, Edward Davey MP which made clear that the national network of 11,500 Post Offices was ‘not for sale’.

This Council also welcomes his announcements of £1.34bn of new investment and plans to examine mutuality which could see ownership and running of the business being handed over to employees, sub postmasters and local communities.

This Council believes that the new proposals contained within the Postal Services Bill will at last provide the stability and security for the Post Office network in Oldham which was sadly lacking under the last Labour Government

This Council Resolves to:

1. request the Chief Executive write to the Minister for Postal Affairs welcoming the provisions of the Postal Services Bill

2. request the Chief Executive to write to the Boroughs three MP’s seeking their support for the Government proposals to inject major new investment into the Post Office network as set out in the Postal Services Bill

c) Councillor to Martin to MOVE and Councillor E Hulme to SECOND.

This Council believes that strong, prosperous and successful communities are best developed by empowering local people to take the key decisions that impact upon them. We recognise that government through centralisation and top down controls has failed; public sector productivity has declined, major social problems persist and trust in democracy fallen. Centralised systems impose bureaucracy, discourage initiative, monopolise resources, suppress diversity, restrict information and bypass those who best understand local needs and priorities.

By devolving power and control of resources to the lowest practical level, and trusting people and their local elected representatives to make decisions, we can ensure that individuals are best placed to pursue their aspirations and make a meaningful contribution towards shaping their local area.

This Council Resolves to:

- Embed the principles of localism and devolved decision making in future Council strategy.

- Investigate opportunities to devolve greater power and resources to our Parish Councils, District Partnerships and the wider community.

- Take steps to promote to Oldham residents the new rights and powers they will have under the Localism Bill to take over services and to purchase local assets.

18 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC -

TO RESOLVE - That in accordance with Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it contains exempt information relating to paragraph 3,4 and 5 of Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It would not, on balance be in the public interest to disclose the information to the public because it contains information relating to the financial and business affairs of the Council and individuals, consultations and negotiations in connection with labour relation matters and information subject to legal privilege.

19 Report of the Chief Executive, the Executive Director Performance, Services and Capacity, the Borough Solicitor and the Borough Treasurer - Council Pay and Grading Review (Pages 123 - 230)

20 Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board - Control of Hot Food Take- Aways. (Pages 231 - 236)

To advise Council of the outcome of the consideration of the Notice of Motion entitled ‘Control of Hot Food Take-Aways’.

21 Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board - Review of Overview and Scrutiny Project Reports Submitted to Cabinet (Pages 237 - 254)

22 Report of Councillor Rod Blyth Cabinet Member, Community Safety and Public Protection - Dog Control Orders (Pages 255 - 280)

23 Review of Decisions Taken By Council 15th December 2010 (Pages 281 - 292)

NOTE: The meeting of the Council will conclude 3 hours and 30 minutes after the commencement of the meeting or after 3 hours 10 minutes if no public questions are received.

Charlie Parker Chief Executive

PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE OF MOTIONS NO AMENDMENT

MOTION – Mover of the Motion to MOVE

MOTION – Seconder of the Motion to SECOND – May reserve right to speak

DEBATE ON THE MOTION: Include Timings

MOVER of Motion – Right of Reply

VOTE – For/Against/Abstain

Declare outcome of the VOTE

RULE ON TIMINGS PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE OF MOTIONS (a) No Member shall speak longer than five minutes on any Motion or Amendment , or by way of question,WITH AMENDMENTobservation or reply, unless by consent of the MembersPROCEDURE of the Council FOR NOTICEpresent, hOFe/she MOTIONS is allowed an extension, in which case only one extension of One Minute shall be allowed. WITH AMENDMENT

(b) A Member replying to more than question will have up to five minutes to reply to each question. WITH AMENDMENT

MOTION – Mover of the Motion to MOVE

MOTION – Seconder of the Motion to SECOND – May reserve right to speak

AMENDMENT – Mover of the Amendment to MOVE

AMENDMENT – Seconder of the Amendment to SECOND

DEBATE on the Amendment For Timings - (See Overleaf)

AMENDMENT – Mover of Original Motion – Right of Reply

IF LOST –Declare AMENDMENT – Mover of Amendment – Lost Right of Reply

VOTE ON AMENDMENT ONLY – Call for any debate For/Against/Abstain – CARRIED/LOST on Original Motion and then Call upon Mover of Original IF CARRIED – Declare Carried Motion – Right of Reply Call for any debate on Substantive Motion as Amended and then Call upon Mover of Original Motion – Right of Reply VOTE – On Original Motion – For/Against/Abstain VOTE – ON SUBSTANTIVE MOTION as amended - For/Against/Abstain

Declare outcome of Declare Substantive Motion as amended the Vote Carried/Lost Agenda Item 2 COUNCIL 15/12/2010 at 6.10 pm

Present: The Mayor – Councillor D Jones

Councillors Akhtar, Alcock, Ball, Barker, Bashforth, Battye, Beeley, Blyth, Brownridge, Buckley, Butterworth, Chadderton, B Dawson, L Dawson, J Dillon, P Dillon, Dinoff, Harrison, Heffernan, Hibbert, Hindle, Holley, Hudson, E Hulme, J Hulme, Hussain, Iqbal, Jabbar, Judge, Knowles (Deputy Chair), Knox, Larkin, Lord, Malik, Martin, Masud, McArdle, McCann, McDonald, McLaren, McMahon, Miah, Pendlebury, Qumer, Roughley, Salamat, Sedgwick, Shaw, Stanton, Stretton, Sykes, Thompson, Toor, Ur-Rehman, Wheeler, Williamson, Wingate and Wrigglesworth

1 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Quinn.

2 TO ORDER THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 BE SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD. The Minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 rd November 2010 were approved as a correct record.

3 TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN ANY MATTER TO BE DETERMINED AT THE MEETING. There were twenty six declarations received. Councillor J Dillon declared a Personal Interest in item 17 – Notices of Motion - by virtue of the fact that he is a shareholder of two banks. Councillors B Dawson and Shaw declared a Personal Interest in Item 18 – Budget Proposals 2010/2011- by virtue of their membership of the Failsworth Grassroots Association. Councillors Alcock, Ball, Buckley, L Dawson, P Dillon, Dinoff, Harrison, Heffernan, E Hulme, Hussain, Larkin, Martin, Masud, McClaren, McDonald, Roughley, Salamat, Sedgwick, Shaw, Stretton, Ur Rehman, Williamson all declared a personal interest in Item 20 – Housing Stock Transfer by virtue of their membership of FCHO Boards. Councillor Hindle declared a personal and prejudicial Interest in Item 20; he left the room for this item and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Page 1 4 TO DEAL WITH MATTERS WHICH THE MAYOR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT BUSINESS. There was no Urgent Business.

5 TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL. 1. The Mayor advised and Council noted in accordance with the time limits set for Council meetings, the guillotine would take effect at 3 hours and 30 minutes at the start of meeting unless otherwise agreed by Council. 2. The Mayor advised Council that due to the large number of members of the public attending the meeting for Items 18 and 20, the order of business within the Council summons would be amended and that Council must agree to suspend Council procedure rule 2.1(u). On a vote being taken, it was AGREED unanimously to suspend Council procedure rule 2.1(u).

6 TO NOTE PETITIONS RECEIVED RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL. There were no petitions received for Council to note.

7 TO DEAL WITH ANY TOPICAL ISSUES AGREED BY THE MAYOR There were no topical issues.

8 TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER QUESTIONS AND RELATED COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS OF THE BOROUGH ABOUT ANY MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL The following public question was raised: Mr James Allen To Council, I deploy the attitude of this Council on not clearing the footpaths of snow on side streets, and not only concentrating on all Town Centres, Hospital and Doctors Surgeries. I call on this Council and Cllr. McCann to re-evaluate the situation, for all the residents of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham must have the same rights as the town centres of Oldham have, in having snow cleared of the footpaths. It as been said of this Council clears all footpaths of snow and grits them that they are liable if someone falls and is injured, from in the same context this can be said in the town centres of Oldham. So I ask that all footpaths are cleared of snow and gritted in line with all the centres of this Borough.

Councillor McCann as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Environment responded asPage follows: 2 “As I’m sure Mr Allen will understand that during periods of bad weather the available resources must be prioritised and in doing so we ensure that we keep all primary routes clear following with the gritting of secondary routes. The details for all the gritting routes are now available on the internet.

We focus all spare resources on clearing access to essential services and those areas which are most frequently used. We clear access to ambulance stations, health centres, elderly people’s accommodations, bus stations and town/district centres. It isn’t feasible to clear all footpaths in the Borough and it has recently been seen in many areas that communities are clearing their own stretch of footpath or supporting their neighbours by checking that they have supplies if they are not able to get out.

In terms of general liability Lord Young has recently made it quite clear that common sense must prevail and to quote from his recent report, “The belief that individuals can be sued for clearing the snow in front of their properties particularly pernicious, as it may deter people from engaging in ordinary volunteer activities in the mistaken belief that they can be sued should anything go wrong. People who seek to do good in our society should not fear litigation as a result of their actions.” (Lord Young, Common sense, Common Safety).

I would therefore urge communities to support each other during the adverse weather as we have recently seen and the Council will endeavour to prioritise the main roads and other priority routes.”

RESOLVED That the question and response be noted.

9 OUTSTANDING BUSINESS FROM THE LAST MEETING Councillor Ateeque UR Rehman MOVED and Councillor Steve Bashforth SECONDED:

“That this council notes with concern the Government’s proposal to cut the police budget to an unprecedented level. This council recognises and values the excellent work carried out by the Police force to reduce crime and protect the public. We share the fears of senior police officers that the Coalition proposals will trigger a significant reduction in the number of police officers in England and Wales which will not only effect local policing but will also weaken the nations defence against Al-Qaida and other threats against our nations’ security. This council recognises the value of British Style of Policing and urges the government to ensure that the close connection with the public is maintained. 83% of the current police budget is spent on people; any cut on the number of police officers will lead to a severe impact on visible policing. Page 3 Oldham Council will resist any proposal that reduces the effectiveness of the police force and which hampers the reduction in crime across the Borough

This council resolves: • To enlist the support of our Members of Parliament in resisting the Coalition Government’s damaging policy.

• To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Government Minister responsible, Nick Herbert, to express Oldham Council’s concerns and fears.”

• Cllr Bashforth reserved his right to speak.

AMENDMENT Councillor Pendlebury MOVED and Councillor Alcock SECONDED the amendment: ‘This Council notes with concern that the plans to cut public spending by more than £40bn as announced before the election by the outgoing Labour government would have had a significant impact on the Greater Manchester Police Authority’s budget for 2010/11.’

In original para 1: Line 1 - delete ‘with concern’; Line 1 - insert ‘new’ before ‘Government’s’; Line 1 - replace ‘cut’ by ‘reduce’; Line 2 - delete ‘to an unprecedented level’; Line 2 - insert at end of the para the words: ‘and welcomes the commitment of the Chief Constable of GMP to protect front-line policing through the plans being developed within the Force.’

Original para 2:

Line 2 - delete all words after ‘protect the public.’ original para 3: Line 1- after the word ‘Council’ insert the word ‘also’ Line 2 - delete all words after ‘maintained.’

Delete original para 4

Resolution (i): Delete all words after ‘Members of Parliament’ and replace by ‘in continuing to pursue additional Government funding for the Greater Manchester Police Force’

Resolution (ii): Delete all words after ‘Minister responsible’ and replace by ‘to bring to his attention the concerns of Oldham Council’

Motion to read as Page 4

“This Council notes with concern that the plans to cut public spending by more than £40bn as announced before the election by the outgoing Labour government would have had a significant impact on the Greater Manchester Police Authority’s budget for 2010/11.

This Council also notes the new Government’s proposal to reduce the police budget and welcomes the commitment of the Chief Constable of GMP to protect front-line policing through the plans being developed within the Force. This council recognises and values the excellent work carried out by the Police force to reduce crime and protect the public. This Council recognises the value of the British style of policing and urges the government to ensure that the close connection with the public is maintained.

This Council resolves:

(i)To enlist the support of our Members of Parliament in continuing to pursue adequate Government funding for the Greater Manchester Police Force: and (ii)To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Government Minister responsible to bring to his attention the concerns of Oldham Council.”

Councillor McMahon spoke against the Amendment Councillor J Hulme spoke in support of the Amendment Councillor Ur Rehman exercised his right of reply. Councillor Pendlebury exercised his right of reply.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on this Amendment. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Akhtar S Against Knowles R For Alcock M For Knox K For Ball G Against Larkin J Against Barker I Against Lord B For Bashforth Against Malik A Against Battye John Against Martin P For Beeley B For Masud M For Blyth R For McArdle James For Brownridge B Against McCann J For Buckley M For McDonald H Against Butterworth G Against Page 5 McLaren C Against Chadderton O Against McMahon J Against Dawson B Against Miah Jilad For Dawson L For Pendlebury K For Dillon J For Qumer S Against Dillon P For Roughley A For Dinoff M For Salamat A Against Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For Heffernan D For Shaw G Against Hibbert D Against Stanton J For Hindle R For Stretton J Against Holley P For Sykes H For Hudson J For Thompson L For Hulme E For Toor Y Against Hulme J For Ur-Rehman A Against Hussain Against Wheeler C For Iqbal J Against Williamson D For Jabbar Against Wingate A For Jones D Against Wrigglesworth J Against Judge B Against

On a recorded vote being taken, the Amendment to the Motion was CARRIED by 31 votes for and 28 votes against. A Vote was then taken on the Substantive Motion as amended. In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on this motion. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Akhtar S Against Knowles R For Alcock M For Knox K For Ball G Against Larkin J Against Barker I Against Lord B For Bashforth Against Malik A Against Battye John Against Martin P For Beeley B For Masud M For Blyth R For McArdle James For Brownridge B Against McCann J For Buckley M For McDonald H Against Page 6 Butterworth G Against McLaren C Against Chadderton O Against McMahon J Against Dawson B Against Miah Jilad For Dawson L For Pendlebury K For Dillon J For Qumer S Against Dillon P For Roughley A For Dinoff M For Salamat A Against Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For Heffernan D For Shaw G Against Hibbert D Against Stanton J For Hindle R For Stretton J Against Holley P For Sykes H For Hudson J For Thompson L For Hulme E For Toor Y Against Hulme J For Ur-Rehman A Against Hussain Against Wheeler C For Iqbal J Against Williamson D For Jabbar Against Wingate A For Jones D Against Wrigglesworth J Against Judge B Against

On a recorded vote being taken, the substantive motion as amended was CARRIED by 31 votes for and 28 votes against. RESOLVED That this Council: 1. Enlists the support of our Members of Parliament in continuing to pursue adequate Government funding for the Greater Manchester Police Force; and

2. Instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Government Minister responsible to bring to his attention the concerns of Oldham Council.

10 MOTIONS OF OPPOSITION BUSINESS 1. Councillor Wrigglesworth MOVED and Councillor Qumer SECONDED the following notice of motion:

“This Council regards the safety of children travelling to and from school as paramount.

Page 7 Councillors having regard to their role as corporate parents resolve to take all necessary measures to maintain the School Crossing Patrol at its current level of service.

This Council recognises that any reduction in the coverage or staffing of the School Crossing Patrols would expose the Borough’s children to unacceptable risks. AMENDMENT

Councillor McCann MOVED and Councillor Knox SECONDED the amendment:

Add new para 1 as follows:

This Council recognises that in the current economic climate, it is essential that all Council service areas are examined fully to determine whether savings can be made, this can be achieved through efficiencies, different ways of working, working with partners or even by the private sector.

Para 1 line 1- after the words ‘this Council’ add ‘,as should parents,’

Para 2 line 1 - after the words ‘corporate parents’ add the words ‘and Community Champions’

Para 2 line 2 - after the words ‘measures to’ add the words ‘assist the community to’

Para 2 line 2 - after the words ‘to maintain’ add the words ‘and even improve’

Para 2 line 2 - the word ‘Patrol’ to be come plural ‘Patrols’

Para2 line 2 - delete the words ‘at its’

Delete para 3

Motion to read

“This Council recognises that in the current economic climate, it is essential that all Council service areas are examined fully to determine whether savings can be made, this can be achieved through efficiencies, different ways of working, working with partners or even by the private sector.

This Council, as should parents, regards the safety of children travelling to and from school as paramount.

Councillors, having regard to their role as corporate parents and community champions resolve to take all necessary measures to assist the Community to maintain and even improve the School Crossing Patrols current level of service.”

Councillor Roughley spokePage in support 8 of the Amendment. Councillors Wrigglesworth and McCann exercised their right of reply.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on this Amendment. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Dillon J For Qumer S Against

Dillon P For Roughley A For

Dinoff M For Salamat A Against

Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For

Heffernan D For Shaw G Against

Hibbert D Against Stanton J For

Hindle R For Stretton J Against

Holley P For Sykes H For

Hudson J For Thompson L For

Hulme E For Toor Y Against

Page 9 Hulme J For Ur-Rehman A Against

Hussain Against Wheeler C For

Iqbal J Against Williamson D For

Jabbar Against Wingate A For

Jones D Against Wrigglesworth J Against

Judge B Against

On a recorded vote being taken, the Amendment was CARRIED by 31 votes for and 28 votes against the Amendment. A Vote was then taken on the Substantive Motion as amended. In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on this motion. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Dillon J For Qumer S Against

Dillon P For Roughley A For

Dinoff M For Salamat A Against

Page 10 Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For

Heffernan D For Shaw G Against

Hibbert D Against Stanton J For

Hindle R For Stretton J Against

Holley P For Sykes H For

Hudson J For Thompson L For

Hulme E For Toor Y Against

Hulme J For Ur-Rehman A Against

Hussain Against Wheeler C For

Iqbal J Against Williamson D For

Jabbar Against Wingate A For

Jones D Against Wrigglesworth J Against

Judge B Against

On a recorded vote being taken the Motion as amended was CARRIED by 31votes FOR and 28 votes AGAINST. RESOLVED 1. That this Council recognises that in the current economic climate, it is essential that all Council service areas are examined fully to determine whether savings can be made, this can be achieved through efficiencies, different ways of working, working with partners or even by the private sector. This Council, as should parents, regards the safety of children travelling to and from school as paramount. Councillors, having regard to their role as corporate parents and community champions resolve to take all necessary measures to assist the Community to maintain and even improve the School Crossing Patrols current level of service.

11 TO NOTE THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING JOINT AUTHORITY AND OLDHAM PARTNERSHIP MEETINGS Page 11 AND THE RELEVANT SPOKESPERSONS TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Minutes of the Joint Authorities were submitted as follows:

Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue 21 st October 2010 Authority 11 th November 2010 (Extraordinary) Greater Manchester Police Authority 3rd September 2010 National Park Authority 24 th September 2010 Association of Greater Manchester 24 th September 2010 Authorities Executive 29 th October 2010 Greater Manchester Waste Disposal 10 th September 2010 Authority

The following questions were asked in relation to the Joint Authority Minutes at the meeting:

(i) Councillor Hindle to Councillor Heffernan, Page 32, Agenda item 11, Minute 46, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority, 21 st October 2010.

“Can the representative on the Fire Authority give more details on the Audit Commissions survey and report as referred to in this minute? Is the Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service on schedule to deal with any periods of disruption to their normal business in the event of extreme situations?”

Does the AGMA authority currently meet the requirements for business continuity management?

(ii) Councillor L Dawson to Councillor P Dillon, Page 69, Minute 35 (Waste Composition), Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, 10 th September 2010.

“Would the spokesperson for Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority advise us as to why the WDA wishes or needs to analyse the residual and recyclable waste collected by all the districts.”

(iii) Councillor Beeley to Councillor Sykes, Page 53 Minute 69/10 Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, 24 th September 2010.

“Could Councillor Sykes update this Council on the progress made with regard to the proposed savings through collaborative working of the AGMA authorities and explain the implications for this Council.”

(iv) Councillor McArdle to Councillor Pendlebury, Page 43, Item 34, Greater Manchester Police Authority, 3 rd September 2010.

Page 12 “Could Councillor Pendlebury expand on the improvement mentioned on line 1 Para 2 and on the comment in the last Para about shared facilities?”

(v) Councillor Malik to Councillor Sykes, Page 62, Minute 90/10, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, 29 th October 2010.

Re budget proposals for 2011/12 – “What is the true cost of AGMA, taking into account the significant time spent by OMBC Officers? What is the impact of proposed cuts in senior managers on ‘playing our part’ in AGMA. “

The following questions were raised at the Meeting:

(vi) Councillor Bashforth to Councillor Heffernan, page 31, paragraph 45 of Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service Authority meeting of 21 st October 2010 requesting an idea of what the proposed cuts would mean in terms of jobs.

(vii) Councillor Ur-Rehman to Councillor Pendlebury, Page 43 item 34, Minutes of GMPA, 3 rd September 2010.

“Regarding the improvements mentioned in para 2, and the Counter Terrorism Unit mentioned in para 3, could Councillor Pendlebury comment on whether these issues will be affected by budget reductions? Also relating to para 4, there was a recent incident at Chadderton Police Station when the counter was not open at the advertised time. Could Councillor Pendlebury explain why this happened?”

Cllr B Judge made the following observation on page 31, paragraph 45 of Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service Authority meeting of 21 st October 2010. “The 25% cuts would bring about severe pressure on the service; all the prevention work that had been undertaken would be under threat and the cuts would affect the most vulnerable in society.”

The relevant spokesperson responded as follows:

(i) Cllr Heffernan responded to the question, Page 32, Agenda item 11 Minute 46, Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Authority, 21 st October 2010.

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service must make provision for the purposes of promoting fire safety in its area. This must include provision of services in the event of Terrorist Acts, Floods, Strikes and other problems which may cause periods of disruption to their normal business.

Page 13 There are good business reasons for these requirements. The Fire & Rescue Service is a key part of UK national security and safety infrastructure.

The Audit Commission found that the Greater Manchester FRS Business Continuity management arrangements were sound. It outlines minimum levels of service and covers all critical activities. The Strategic Plan has robust Action Plans in place which are regularly updated to reflect changes. The Services degradation plan ensures a tiered reduction of resources for Control Room staff, vehicles and firefighters. These plans are regularly tested.

Capacity is assured by multi-skilling staff for critical functions and a recall to duty policy. You will not die in your beds.

There is however, one potential weakness in the system. Because of the previous government’s grandiose plans to reduce the number of Control Rooms countrywide from 46 to 9, and save about £40million annually, the Control at GMFRS is rapidly approaching its sell-by date. We are not the only FRS in the country to be in this situation. Others that are similarly situated include a number of adjoining Services. The new Control near Warrington is built and was due to come on line in 2009. I visited in 2009. It is a wonderful building but it is, however empty and the anticipated savings have come down to zero. The necessary equipment has not arrived and is not due in the immediate future. Liberal Democrat and Tory members warned in the beginning that the scheme could be unworkable. The equipment had never been tested. The Government was buying off plan. The Liberal Democrat and Tory Groups on the LGA were particularly vocal on the issue. The supplier has been advised of proceedings for breach of contract. We are expecting a statement from the Minister in the immediate future, probably this month, which will set out the current situation and what the future holds. Meanwhile GMFRS are in the immediate planning stage to ensure our service to the public continues to keep people safe. The taxpayer is, however, shouldering the cost of keeping that empty building secure and clean. Details of that cost will become clearer at a later date.

This is of course typical of grandiose dreams at public expense which come to nothing. Identity Cards, the NHS Computer System, Fire Control.

You can be sure, however, that we will look to drive deaths from fire down below last years record low, the cost to the Council tax payer will remain for at least one more year at about £1.00 per week per household. Training and equipment used in GMFRS will be of the highest standard, 22 new Fire Appliances due on line in the next 12 months or so, new Breathing Apparatus now introduced and Officers trained. Carbon emissions are at a new low. Page 14 (ii) Councillor P Dillon responded to the question, Page 69, Agenda Item M 35, (Waste Composition) Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, 10 th September 2010.

Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority is aiming to reach 50% recycling and composting rates by 2015. At the moment 34% is recycled. To achieve this, a new project has been set up, which will give the Authority a better understanding of what is in Greater Manchester’s household waste and recycling containers.

The project involves some household waste being sorted to establish what is left in the disposal waste stream now that Greater Manchester residents are achieving 34% recycling and composting. This will allow the Authority to provide further help to improve recycling rates.

Householders involved in the project will be informed that the contents of their bins will be taken away for analysis which will not cause any disruption to the normal recycling and waste collection service they receive. The information obtained from the waste and recycling sort will be confidential and will only be used to improve recycling rates. Although the recycling will be taken away for sorting it will be returned to the recycling stream for reprocessing.

The project will commence with a questionnaire door step survey before Christmas, and the first waste sort will be undertaken in the New Year. The analysis only provides a ‘snapshot’ in time, so a further waste sorting exercise will need to be carried out later in the year to account for seasonal changes.

Greater Manchester residents have done really well increasing the amount they recycle from 7% to 34% over the last 7 years; we need to reach 50% in the next 4 years. Information obtained from this project will shape the development of the recycling and composting service to ensure that the Authority reaches its targets. It is another step forward towards the Authority’s aim of zero waste to landfill. This makes sense, both financially and in protecting the environment.

(iii) Councillor Sykes responded to the question, Page 53 Minute 69/10, Public Sector Reform – Delivery of AGMA’s Improvement and Efficiency Agenda, AGMA Executive Board, 24 th September 2010

The Council is actively working with other organisations and Councils within the AGMA area, and some of the savings identified through the Star Chamber process relate to elements of this approach. Page 15 I am pleased to be able to tell my colleague that we currently anticipate savings approaching £1m being generated through collaborative projects.

The main areas in which collaboration is estimated to produce savings include:

ICT – this will involve us in reducing the purchase price for equipment through e auctions which was recently led by Oldham on behalf of AGMA, schools and FCHO.

In addition we liaise with colleagues in AGMA and have taken advantage of better tariff rates for mobile phones through a new contract with Orange.

Contact Centre – as Councillor Beeley will be aware we are working with our colleagues in Rochdale by combining our two contact centres to generate efficiencies.

Transport – Oldham is leading the procurement stream for AGMA which involves us in setting up new framework agreements for hire and purchase of vehicles.

Related to this Stockport and Bolton have specifically asked us to manage their procurement of transport.

Manchester have also recently requested sight of the contract to bring themselves more into these new arrangements.

Oldham is also leading the electric car project for AGMA, this project is looking at installing charging points and garages around AGMA to allow better use of such means of transport.

I can assure Councillor Beeley that the Council will be very actively pursuing further collaborative work and savings arising from this work and Oldham Council is at the forefront of joint work across the region.

We are for example the leading players in the AGMA collaborative improvement and efficiency programme and are one of three AGMA Councils preparing the strategy for the whole of AGMA.

(iv) Councillor Pendlebury responded to the question, Page 43 Item 34, Key Points on Current Force Performance, Greater Manchester Police Authority 3 rd September 2010.

Performance Improvements

The minute refers to improvements in the performance indicators comparing the figures for the first quarter of 2010-11 with the same quarter of the previous year (i.e. the Apr-Jun quarter).

Page 16 It was reported that GMP was achieving the targets determined for 6 of the 10 performance measures, and it was within 10% of the target for the other 4.

In 4 of the measures, GMP improved its position in relation to the other Forces in its Group of Most Similar Forces.

Number of recorded incidents:

anti-social behaviour: down domestic burglaries: down vehicle crimes: down

sanction detection rate for: domestic burglaries: up vehicle crimes: up domestic abuse crimes: up racially or religiously aggravated crimes: up serious sexual offences: up

Force performance in reducing overall crime is clearly improving, and sanction detection rates for all crimes are improving. However, GMP is still performing less well on these measures than the other forces in its Most Similar Group neighbours.

There is an improvement in the percentage of the public who agree that the police and local councils are dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour issues that matter in their local area.

I would be happy to provide more details of these measures to any member who wishes me to do so.

Shared Facilities

The reference in this paragraph is in the context of the possibility of sharing physical facilities – i.e. buildings, offices, etc.

This possibility arises from consideration of the future vision of Integrated Neighbourhood Management and the development of Neighbourhood Policing. It makes sense to consider whether the need to have facilities accessible to the public might be better served through buildings which are shared between partners such as local authorities and the police force. For instance, the police could provide a public access point through a district housing office.

There is also a need to consider the Force’s estate – the buildings which it owns or leases. When reviewing the estate (and its financial implications), it makes sense to consider all options – whether a police presence is necessary in an area, whether facilities are sufficiently accessible to the public, etc. Page 17 Depending on the nature of different areas, accessible facilities might be best provided through existing buildings, through mobile police stations, or through the use of shared facilities. Nothing is fixed; discussions are continuing between GMP and local authorities on the long-term vision for Integrated Neighbourhood Management, and these discussions include the exploration of shared facilities.

(v) Councillor Sykes responded to the question, Page 62 item 90/10, AGMA Budget proposals 2011/2012 and Review of Joint Authority Budgets AGMA minutes of the meeting held 29 th October 2010.

The question concerns the cost of AGMA, without acknowledging or even asking for information on the value of AGMA – and the cost of not taking part – which speaks volumes. The Council currently spends £1,468,408 annually on AGMA. Most of this is made up from what we pay to the various AGMA units. There are more than 20 such units, carrying out functions across Greater Manchester that we would otherwise have to fund locally. They include an archaeology unit, emergency planning and a trading standards unit. It is difficult to quantify how much we would spend locally if these functions were not provided across Greater Manchester, but it is likely it would be significantly more than we contribute to the Greater Manchester units. In terms of officer and Councillor time – this varies across roles and responsibilities, but in relation to the extended senior leadership team (35 people) a reasonable estimate would be 116 days a month, the cost of which will vary depending upon the nature of the officers involvement and their grade. Additionally other benefits result in specific financial savings. For example, to date, Oldham have saved:

£150,000 on mobile telephones £500,000 on a computer refresh (over four years) £50,000 on the food contract £20,000 on school milk £5,000 on pest control

Equally, we have been able to save money by working jointly on some things instead of doing them separately.

For example:

By working jointly on the Local Economic Assessment, we jointly spent £20,000 instead of the £200,000 it would have cost us to do it separately.

We have also agreed a stretching target of making 10-20% of our savings over the next four years from further collaborative work across AGMA.

Page 18 Last year, we showed that over £22 billion of public funding was spent in Greater Manchester.

We can only gain the benefits if we engage effectively across AGMA – through direct involvement of senior officers and councillors in formal and informal meetings and working groups, supported by the regional policy team.

Only by having a clear view on opportunities for Oldham, our priorities, and what we can offer AGMA can we properly influence debates at AGMA level, and make sure that opportunities for Oldham citizens are maximised.

Equally, to influence effectively, it is important to understand the issues for other AGMA authorities, and how we can support them.

The changes to senior management will be part of the new operating framework.

This is focused on changing how we operate as a council, and engaging proactively in the sub-region is an important part of this.

The changes mean we make more of the opportunities provided, by ensuring that working at sub-regional, borough and neighbourhood level is recognised as core business for our staff.

The following responses were given to the verbal questions received at the meeting:

(vi) Councillor Heffernan responded to the question page 31, paragraph 45 of Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service Authority meeting of 21 st October 2010 requesting an idea of what the proposed cuts would mean in terms of jobs and he agreed to prepare a written response to the question.

(vii) Councillor Pendlebury responded to the question Page 43 item 34, Minutes of GMPA, 3 rd September 2010.

“The first part of Cllr Ur-Rehman’s question invites a political answer rather than a factual answer. In the same way that Cllr Ur-Rehman might conjecture that performance improvements and counter-terrorism activities will be affected by the budget reductions, I could respond by simply saying that they will not be affected; as we are talking about the future, it will only be possible to give a definitive answer at some future point.

However, I can give Cllr Ur-Rehman an assurance that it is the intention of both GMPA and GMP that the re-organisation plans for the Force will have the effect of maintaining the performance improvements. It is also the intention of both GMPA and GMP that they will continue to do whatever is necessary in relation to counter-terrorism. Page 19

In relation to the second part of his question, Cllr Ur-Rehman mentions an occasion when the counter at Chadderton Police Station was not open at the advertised time. If Cllr Ur-Rehman could provide me with further details, I will look into the matter and attempt to obtain an answer.”

RESOLVED That the questions, answers and observations on the Joint Authority Minutes be noted.

12 CABINET QUESTION TIME The following written questions were submitted:

1. From Councillor Sedgwick for Councillor Sykes.

It is pleasing to note that the Council has been recognised by many different Organisations and Bodies for the excellent work it has been doing over the last two years or so.

Could the Council Leader let the Council know what awards the Council has actually received, focussing in particular on the last 12 months?

2. From Councillor Hindle for Councillor Alcock.

Over the last two/two and a half years this Council has consistently placed the highest priority on improvement of the environment for its citizens.

It is generally recognised that there has been significant progress on things such as cleanliness of the streets etc.

Could the Cabinet member provide Council with evidence of the progress made in this service area over that time period?

3. From Councillor Williamson for Councillor McCann.

The Council has been actively involved in many housing related schemes in the Borough in the last couple of years, ranging from new social housing to providing assistance to help people stay in their homes in the current harsh economic environment.

Could the Cabinet Member provide some details on the various schemes in operation and give an indication of the positive impact these schemes have had on the lives of significant numbers of the citizens of this Borough.

4. From Councillor J Dillon for Councillor Thompson.

There have been a number of inspections carried out by various Government sponsored bodies at Oldham Council over the last couple of years, many of Pagewhich have 20 pointed to good progress on our improvement programme, such as the Council’s Auditors providing an unqualified opinion on the accounts for 2009/10

Could the Cabinet Member give details of the inspections carried out at the Council over the last two years and provide members with an indication of the results and the ratings received?

5. From Councillor Wingate for Councillor Blyth.

One of the top priorities of the Council over the last two and a half years has been to tackle Anti Social behaviour in the Borough Could the Cabinet Member provide details of what the Council has been doing in the last few years to combat anti – social behaviour and could he provide details of the level of success achieved?

6. From Councillor Hussain for Councillor Thompson. All questions refer to the Budget Proposals report which appears as item 6 on the Cabinet agenda dated 6 th December 2010.

With reference to Appendix B of the report headed Priority Investment Fund -2011/12; 20 of the priority investment items listed there were included last year. There is a drop in investment for ‘’Keeping in Touch’’ of £15k, why is this?

You continue to invest in Bloom and Grow, Saddleworth Tourism and Christmas Lights and yet at the same time the most vulnerable and needy people in the Borough are facing swingeing cuts to both their income and services. Do you consider this good use of funds?

Could you explain why the Affordable Warmth Co-ordinator post appears twice in appendix B of the report, is this an error?

7. From Councillor Ball for Councillor Sykes

Appendix D page 35 of 141 of the Budget Proposals report (page 45 on the Cabinet agenda) ref ACE 2, outlines budgets identified across the Council totalling £250k for marketing and publicity and notes that you are seeking permission from Exec Directors for this amount to be secured as a central saving. Yet we see that Priority Investments for 2011/12, appendix B, include £50k for EPS marketing under the corporate theme of a university town and a further £15k , with an increase of one member of staff, under the theme of a confident place for marketing and communication for safe, strong and clean. Why is this?

8. From Councillor Bashforth for Councillor Blyth

With reference to Appendix D of the budget proposals, Cabinet agenda item 6 dated 6 th December, whilst the initial impact assessments have been includedPage at 21 the foot of each option presented, they fail to recognise the effect the savings will have on staff; many of whom live within the Borough. Appendix C tells us that 378.15fte will be slashed from the workforce in some of our services and this will represent some 20% of the staff employed in these particular areas. Do you not consider this to have an adverse impact?

9. From Councillor Iqbal for Councillor Stanton

1.Item 10 page 21 of 141 (page 31 of the Cabinet agenda) states that a public consultation exercise will be undertaken and dates for stakeholder meetings are in the process of being confirmed. Would it not have been wiser to seek the views of the vulnerable people and their families prior to announcing changes to services such as supported living and the possible closures of 4 existing council residential care homes?

2. Page 87 of 141 (page 97 of the Cabinet Agenda) item PCS1.12. Age UK provide a face to face service to advise families about suitable residential and nursing homes. In 2009/10 809 interviews were held and a further 2,921 information packs issued. At the P&VFM meeting on the 11th November you alluded to the fact that you were concerned that this service was not reaching everyone. Is bringing this service back in house the ideal option? Age UK provide an independent advice service, would it not have been a better option for you to ask Age UK to look at the service already offered to address these concerns?

10. From Councillor Larkin for Councillor Alcock

Paragraph 6.8 page 9 of 141 (page 19 of the Cabinet Agenda) Can you expand on your vision for and your commitment to area working what will be different to the current working practice?

Cabinet Members’ Responses were as follows:

1. Councillor Sykes responded to Councillor Sedgwick with the following answer:

Economy Place and Skills:

Guardian Public Services Award 2010 (Housing & Regeneration Category) for the Housing Downsizing project (November 2010)

RSPCA Gold Awards for both Dog Warden Services, and Civil Resilience (2010)

RSPCA Silver Award for Animal Welfare Principles (2010)

RSPCA Runner up award for ‘Innovator of the Year’ (around age restrictions on pet purchasing) 2010 Page 22 ‘Planning for Climate Change’ from CLASP North West for our policy on renewable energy requirements in major new developments (November 2010)

‘Best Community Development Award’ from LABC (Local Authority Building Control) for Tandle View Court (a new build sheltered housing scheme) May 2010

North West in Bloom – Best Small City Award (October 2010)

National Environmental Green Apple Award for Waste

Seven Green Flag Park awards

Planning Award for our UDP Renewable Energy Policy

MJ Award for Innovation in Waste

Highly Commended Award at North West Regional Building Excellence Awards for best small housing development category for the Parklands project, Royton (Holroy developments and Hall Needham are Oldham Building Control partners within the LABC National partnership scheme) (May 2010)

Performance Services and Capacity:

Council were winners at the LGC Challenge in October of Political Sensitivity Award

Catering Service have achieved Bronze and Silver Food for Life Catering Mark

Catering Service – Good Egg Award

Assistant Chief Executive:

European Public Sector Award (November 2009) National Environmental Green Apple Award for Waste Green Apple Award for Eco-Champion Network (November 2009) Shortlisted for the LGC Most Improves Council Award Shortlisted for the Chartered Institute of Marketing - Marketing Excellence Award 2010 in the Public Sector category

People Communities and Society

Children’s

- Ofsted today announced Children’s services as ‘Excellent’ highest possible rating - Outstanding fostering service - Good adoption services - Good and outstandingPage children’s 23 homes - Staying Safe – the Young People’s Charter of Digital Rights (a Safety Activity) - Anti- Bullying – the LSCB Young People’s Anti Bullying Conference last November - Personal Achievement – Becca Dale for her Road Safety Campaign

The Oldham Lifelong Learning Service has been awarded the following external national awards

- LSIS (Learning and Skills Improvement Service) Beacon Status - Matrix Quality Standard for Information, Advice and Guidance - 2 outstanding inspection judgements

Adults

CQC 25 th November announced Adults services as ‘performing well’

2. Councillor Alcock responded to Councillor Hindle with the following answer:

Councillor Alcock to Councillor Hindle

Cleanliness of streets and roads is very important to local people and the Council. The 2010 You and Your Community Survey said that Clean Streets (51%) is seen as the second most important issue.

Improvements in actual levels of cleanliness have been achieved in a number of ways, including reducing the number of the boroughs 4000 streets which are unsatisfactory with litter from 12% down to 5% and from 25% down to 10% for detritus.

Street Scene Teams have gathered up to 40% more materials each year, removing over 8000 tonnes annually.

Area based teams were introduced over two years ago to focus on dealing with environmental problems such as the rapid and speedy removal of around 1,500 fly tipping incidents each year and 350 service requests for sweeping and litter removal each month.

Oldham is recognised as having the cleanest streets in Greater Manchester says the Tidy Britain group,that is from having the dirtiest the previous year in 2007.

Other initiatives have also contributed to and improving the local environment within Oldham. For example –

Page 24 • Over 100 Alleyways so far this year have been cleaned, and many have had “road plannings” spread and rolled to improve access for residents. • This year Street scene teams tackled 44 Grot spots already along with a focus on the boroughs Gateways and Corridors roads. • Refreshing the boroughs litterbin stocks with new designs that encourage the responsible disposal of cigarette ends & chewing gum waste as well as other waste. • Fully supporting the successful NW in Blooms awards each year, last year the judges scored cleanliness in Oldham town centre as 9.9 out of 10.

Significant improvements in cleansing operations have been achieved, and we plan to do even more.

3. Councillor McCann responded to Councillor Williamson with the following answer:

We recognise that these are challenging times for our residents. Over the past 2 years, we have worked hard with our partners to deliver real improvements to people’s lives, through making the best use of our existing resources and bringing in new investment. In the last 2 years, we have:

- Worked with housing providers to build 267 affordable homes (which is the highest number built since the 1970’s)

- Brought back into use 229 empty homes which were causing a blight in local communities

- Spent over £100m through the largest sheltered PFI scheme in the country, improving the health and wellbeing of 1500 elderly households

- Freed up to 226 existing family homes through our award- winning downsizing project; the majority of which have gone to previously overcrowded families

- Prevented homelessness last year for nearly 1,200 households, with initiatives such as the Bond Scheme (and we are the best performing in Greater Manchester at preventing homelessness)

- Built over new homes and improved over 500 properties through the HMR programme in the last 2 years, improving the living conditions for those residents

- Accredited over 500 private sector homes through the landlord accreditation to ensure the health, safety and welfare of tenants

- Helped 172 residents at risk of losing their home through our nationally recognised mortgage rescue scheme, with 17 mortgage rescues being completedPage 25

- Provided advice to 242 households from the court desk service and been able to prevent evictions in 90% of cases

- Helped 266 households stay in their homes through Discretionary Housing Payments

- Secured over £6m of investment to address fuel poverty for our most vulnerable residents.

- Improved advice and support through the launch of the ‘One Point’ Housing Options Service, providing access to a wider range of housing services

4. Councillor Thompson responded to Councillor J Dillon with the following answer:

Independent inspections do provide proof of improvement.

In 2008:

1. The Corporate Performance Assessment gave the Council a two star rating – “adequate”, with “improving adequately” as the direction of travel. Some services were rated “good” but a low mark for use of resources kept the overall score low.

2. Social services gained a “good”.

In 2009:

3. The Comprehensive Area Assessment rated most services “good” and noted a quickened pace of improvement.

4. Tidy Britain’s markings for street cleanliness took Oldham from dirtiest to cleanest in Greater Manchester.

5. The Pupil Referral Unit and Lifelong Learning were both marked “outstanding”.

In 2010:

6. The Benefits Inspection was “fair” over 2 years but was an above average performer at the end of the period.

7. Ofsted rated the Adoption Service “good” and Fostering “outstanding”.

8. All music teaching was judged “good” or better.

9. Three care homes were rated 3 stars – “excellent” - and 4 care services 2 stars – “good”.

10. The Audit opinions for both years were 'unqualified’. The Audit Commission commented in 2010 on a big improvement in accuracy – “free of materialPage errors 26 for the first time in at least 5 years” – and completion of the audit was within the first ten nationally.

And this month:

11. Ofsted rated Children's Services “excellent”.

12. Adult Social Services was rated “performing well”, with "excellent” in three out of seven outcomes

I thank everyone who made all these improvements.

5. Councillor Blyth responded to Councillor Wingate with the following answer:

Tackling anti-social behaviour across all our neighbourhoods is a key priority for the Council and reducing incidents of anti social behaviour is a key objective that drives “One Safer Oldham” - our wider partnership with GMP, Fire Service and Probation.

Within the Council, our Community Safety Services have a dedicated Anti-Social Behavior Team that works closely with the police, the licensing team, housing providers and youth services to tackle those that behave in an anti-social way and to help reduce the amount of anti-social behaviour in the borough. At a neighbourhood level, we have multi-agency Area Action Teams for each of our six districts. Area Action Teams bring together partners to share intelligence and identify pool resources to target local hot spots.

Our focus is to address the Offender Victim Location

Offender

One of our key initiatives has been GO Oldham, which incorporates a web based interactive resource detailing activities taking place across the Borough. Go Oldham also incorporates a weekly analysis of ASB across the borough which is shared with partners and informs and directs a series of tailored outreach and diversionary activities and enforcement operations in ASB hotspots.

Victim

In addition, an ‘ASB Victims Champion’ funded by the partnership has been located in the Council’s Community Safety team offering rapid support and reassurance to the most vulnerable victims of Anti Social Behaviour.

Location Page 27 The Borough wide Alley Gating Programme enhanced through the “Through the District Partnerships” has also played a significant part in addressing local hotspots and returning ownership of areas to local communities

Examination of the reports to GMP of ASB shows a reduction in levels of ASB both overall and also in relation to youth ASB.

YTD 2009 YTD 2010 Reduction

Number of ASB incidents 14565 10514 - 4051 Number of youth ASB incidents 5592 4311 - 1281

The most recent evaluation of the Go Oldham project was the summer evaluation and this compared youth ASB figures from 2008 when the project began to summer 2010.

Number of incidents summer 2008 1834

Number of incidents summer 2010 1015

This is a reduction of 45%

6. Councillor Thompson responded to Councillor Hussain with the following answer:

Keeping in Touch

We have prioritised improvements to the ways we keep in touch with residents and have allocated £15k funding for an interim post charged with social marketing on the safer and cleaner theme. A key responsibility of this postholder is to prepare a strategy for partnership working across the Council’s Community Safety Services Team, Greater Manchester Police, Probation Service and other organisations whose activities address this particular area. There is, therefore, a sharing of resource with Community Safety.

Bloom and Grow, Tourism and Christmas lights

In short, yes; I do consider it a good use of funds. These projects contribute to present and future prosperity in the Borough. In the long term, that is what will turn round health, housing and many other issues in this Borough.

In survey after survey of potential investors, developers and visitors one issue above all faces Oldham: its reputation.

Page 28 We have a hard working, engaged and educated workforce and a young, vibrant population. 25% of the Borough is national park, 40% green-belt. Oldham is a great place to live, a profitable place to do business and a wonderful place to visit. Traditionally, however, there has been no shortage of people willing to talk the Borough down.

Christmas lights and events

The small investment we make in festive events; which is usually part of a pot with other, business-led investment and is more than offset by the benefits in terms of visitor spend and investment.

Bloom and Grow

Bloom and Grow for instance, delivers benefits across a variety of areas – it is a commitment to achieving sustained improvements for the Borough all year round. Its success can be measured by the fact that Oldham was crowned Best City* in 'North West in Bloom 2010', despite being up against a host of larger conurbations, including Chester and Preston.

Again, it draws in funding from business, both with the Town Centre Partnership and with individual traders of all sizes in the town and district centres.

It also has a skills spin off, in that it provides a comprehensive training opportunity for our apprentices, owing to new elements each year, which expose them to research, design and planning elements of the work. Our apprentices display these skills to the Borough’s credit at other events, such as Tatton Flower Show.

Tourism

Tourism, as well as improving the reputation of the Borough, is a very important part of the Borough’s economy, contributing £389 million, attracting an estimated 8,440,000 visitors and supporting 5,784 local jobs*

* Figures from the 2008 STEAM report for Oldham

It has also been identified by the Commission for New Economy as a key growth sector for Greater Manchester’s rural areas such as Saddleworth.

As a result, supporting tourism is a key element of the work to realise our ‘Address of Choice’ objective. With investment in tourism helping to:

Improve perceptions of the area Attract visitors to visit and spend money here Encourage investment in the area’s businesses (accommodation, retail, farming and more) and landscape Provide a quality leisure offerPage for local 29 residents and Create jobs within the tourism sector.

The Supporting Tourism in Saddleworth Programme receives a relatively small allocation of £16,000 from the Priority Investment Fund budget. This limited budget is managed to ensure that it goes a long way, this year delivering and supporting 19 projects* that enhance the quality of Saddleworth’s tourism ‘offer’ by:

Improving visitor information and visitor infrastructure. Adding value to existing local projects/events in a way that will help maximize the wider tourism benefits. Encouraging co-ordinated or joint projects between organisations involved in supporting tourism

* 11 new schemes and 8 continuing from 2009/10

Effective use of this limited budget is also ensured by:

Developing the Programme in consultation with key local partners and tourism stakeholders, to make sure it addresses the issues and opportunities felt to be a priority by those people closest to them. Selecting schemes that: Provide significant value for money - through involvement of partners, use of the media, adding value to other existing initiatives and so on Do not place significant resource pressures on the Council - as they link other priority schemes, and/or can be delivered wholly or in part by other agencies/organisations

In addition, the Supporting Tourism in Saddleworth PIF funding is being used to draw down and/or add value to additional funding from partners. With at least £8,000 additional funding drawn down to deliver tourism schemes in 2010/11 and the PIF funding adding value to tourism investment from partners of at least £20,000. For example, an allocation of £1,000 PIF funding this year is helping to secure £6,000 additional grant funding for the 2011 Huddersfield Canal Bicentenary celebration events.

The Supporting Tourism in Saddleworth programme is managed within existing council staff resources and supported by a series of Future Jobs Fund placements. Further maximising the percentage of PIF funding which gets spent directly on projects with just £200 allocated to be spent on project management costs (such as room hire, postage, travel expenses etc.).

Examples of the impact and benefits of this funding include:

Production and distribution over 9,000 ‘Visit Oldham’ bookmarks promoting the beautiful attractions and major events the area has to offer Promoting our tourism offer alongside the best of the Greater Manchester attractions, with 2 adverts running for a total of 12 months in the Manchester City Region Destination Magazine Page 30 promoted locally, nationally and internationally by Visit Manchester. Creation of a visitor guide for the Borough, 3,000 copies of which are being distributed to Tourist Information Centres across the North West, Yorkshire and Peak District Providing free advertising and promotion for local tourism businesses and events through the new Visit Oldham website, which has received 20,972 unique visitors since its launch in February 2010. Improving and promoting facilities for visitors through the successful community toilets pilot in Saddleworth and the provision of the Saddleworth Hopper ‘tourist bus’ service Improving our understanding of the local visitor economy, by working with Visit Manchester to carry out additional survey sessions in Saddleworth as part of the 2010 Greater Manchester Visitor Survey. Resulting in an increase of over 220% in the number of responses, and allowing a district level analysis to be carried out for the first time. Providing a platform to showcase the area, and promote local business and attractions as part of a holistic offer to group travel organisers at the 2011 Great Days Out trade show Supporting the continued success and growth of new local events such as the Local Food Fayre at Brownhill and Diggle Blues Festival Showcasing the wider tourism offer in Saddleworth to visitors at Dove Stone Reservoir through creating a new series of on site visitor information panels in partnership with the RSPB, due to be installed spring 2011 Improving the ‘first impression’ we give to visitors, by enabling repairs to be carried out to dry stone walls around a key visitor car park off the A62 Huddersfield Road at Standedge.

Effect on needy people

As you can see, small investments are making big differences.

However, you compare it to what you call “swinging cuts” to the income and services of needy people, though you do not say what you have in mind.

Regarding income, cutting these programmes would reduce or remove more livelihoods than it would improve. In another service the money might sustain posts which could otherwise be lost, but the Council and other workers who deliver the programmes you ask about would not be needed. It swaps one for another. More importantly the boost to business provides jobs both directly and indirectly throughout the local economy.

Regarding services, maintaining both the urban and rural environments is a service which most people value. It is free recreation – a very important consideration for some people and the rates and other income generated sustain services.

I suspect, however, that you may be referring to the budget options to modernise socialPage services. 31 If so, I think you may have misunderstood them. The options about home care and respite care are not service cuts but a different way to deliver the same level of services. It is expensive to maintain a full staff and buildings when demand fluctuates. Buying services means we will procure only what we need when we need it, so saving money. Individual budget holders, who form an increasing proportion of social services clients, can already do that, and do.

Delivery of some services by partners is the norm in most authorities, and has been for ten years or more in many within AGMA. Most retain services like re-ablement, as we plan to.

In the case of day centres, we are proposing to remove unwanted places. With resources tight, we cannot justify running four centres when there is demand to take up only three.

Forgive me if I guess your meaning wrongly and please feel free to get in touch again.

Affordable warmth

There is no error.

Funding from the Priority Investment Fund of £24,000 for the appointment of an Affordable Warmth Co-ordinator was allocated in 2009/10. The scheme got off to an excellent start and drew in a lot of outside resource, which covered expenses.

This allocation was carried into 2010/11 and a separate request was subsequently approved to provide the additional funding of £20,000 to cover full year salary and related on costs relating to the post from 10/11 onwards.

I hope that the scheme achievements below will reassure you that this small funding stream is achieving great things.

Since the co-ordinator has been in post (December 2009) investment of nearly £3.5m has been generated to reduce heat loss from homes In the next 2 years, it is estimated that at least £10m of additional investment will be levered into this work area The co-ordinator has also developed a range of projects to support our most vulnerable residents and ensure advice, financial support and measures are in place to help bring people out of fuel poverty.

7. Councillor Sykes responded to Councillor Ball with the following answer:

We are seeking savings of £250k across marketing and publicity budgets across the council, and £160k from the central Corporate Communications team’s budget itself. This is part of the savings and efficiencies we’re identifying across all areas at present. Page 32

At the same time we’re continuing to focus our remaining funding where it really counts.

The University Town Theme is a key Council priority, which has been well received across all parties and partner organisations.

The Council has worked hard to secure investment to deliver our corporate objectives and priorities. Within the University Town programme I am pleased to state that we were able to secure Oldham’s place as being the host in the North West for a Regional Science Centre.

This £10 million investment is hugely significant in raising the Borough’s position within the sub-region and nationally. The Priority Investment Fund allocation for marketing and communications is a key part of the overall scheme and is being used to ensure that we use the Regional Science Centre as a catalyst for additional private and public sector investment.

A key objective is to engage with major private sector technology and engineering companies to promote Oldham and attract investment into the borough. While the budget is relatively small, it will act as multiplier.

The £15k funding is for an interim post addressing safer, cleaner, cleaner marketing and communications theme. A key responsibility of this postholder is to prepare a strategy for partnership working across the council’s Community Safety Services team, Greater Manchester Police, Probation Service and other organisations whose activities address this particular area.

8. Councillor Blyth responded to Councillor Bashforth with the following answer:

The screenings on the budget proposals relate to equality impact and there is likely to be an impact on service users and staff affected by some of the proposals, but we are seeking to minimize this. The EIA process is to ensure that we understand the potential impact of the proposals and seek ways to mitigate the impact.

At this stage of the process we are not able to state whether these proposals, if approved, will have a disproportionate adverse impact on the profile of our workforce, but it is something we are mindful of and intend to consider.

There are a number of reasons why, at this stage, it is difficult to assess this accurately.

Mainly, that as these are only proposals at this stage and some of them are out to public consultation, the loss of these posts are by no means a foregone conclusion. Page 33

The collective consultation period with the Unions is still ongoing and, therefore, individual people have not been given notice of redundancy Some of the proposals where posts are identified for deletion are currently vacant; therefore, the impact on the current workforce profile from these proposals will be minimal. The Council is in the process of seeking volunteers for redundancy and to date over 160 have already been received. Closing dates for receipt of applications have not yet been reached in some work areas. Once volunteers have been considered the Council will be in a position to better assess the impact on remaining employees.

It is the intention to submit an overall EIA (including impact of the proposals on the workforce profile) to February Council where the proposals are to be approved.

9. Councillor Stanton responded to Councillor Iqbal with the following answers:

(i). The Council accepts that the Age Concern service that advises families about suitable residential and nursing homes is a good quality service. However, unlike many other services we do have a statutory duty to fund such a service. Furthermore, the Council only funds 250 people to go into residential care each year, so spending £42,000 to ensure good advice for these 250 cases is relatively expensive. If at all possible we do want to keep this valuable service and discussions continue with Age Concern to see whether the service can continue but in a more cost effective manner.

(ii). The Council is trying to follow the best practice in consulting with all parties affected, particularly the people who use these services and their families. Three public meetings have been arranged on 13, 15 and 17 December, 2010 and in addition there are seven other specific consultation meetings with the users and family members. These service consultations are focused on particular services facing the greatest change such as the care homes, the vocational projects, the mental health day services and the Link Centre catering service. The outcomes of these meetings will be reported back to Scrutiny and Cabinet in January.

10. Councillor Alcock responded to Councillor Larkin with the following answer:

We are totally committed to Area Working and this is demonstrated through our achievements in taking the Area Working Framework, which was fully supported by all parties at Council in May this year.

Our achievements to date have seen: Page 34 More resources devolved to a local level with each District Partnership having an additional £100k to address local issues as defined by the Councilors and residents. In addition, each ward has been allocated £25k to prioritise highway issues and add value to local schemes. A core offer of services is delivered that are influenced and shaped locally, Community Safety, Street Scene Services, and Parks and Countryside services, Integrated Youth Services. PACTS are more flexible to meet local needs around our face to face engagement with our communities. But we also engage with our communities through their own broader local networks, forums and events to reach those residents who don’t attend meetings. Each District Partnership has agreed key priorities that citizens have identified as being important to them. These priorities now go beyond the immediate issues of crime and environment and also address health and wellbeing and economic prosperity. Partners are engaged in taking this work forward through local working groups that involve local residents and service providers in adding value to universal services.

For instance:

Failsworth -commissioning additional welfare rights support to work with local residents. Chadderton working with local GPs and NHS Oldham in addressing local health issues.

Our vision going forward remains around the core principles set out within the agreed Framework, namely: Local devolved decision making and allocation of resources Flexible Community Engagement plans Local delivery and management of services to meet local need

We now need to build upon our successes and in the light of the changing landscape of public services accelerate our approach to Neighbourhood working. Moving forward, there will be increasing emphasis on local service delivery and decision- making. A full paper that compliments the new operating model of the Council will be brought to Cabinet in January.

In summary though we will be Building on our core offer; we will see a greater range of services delivered locally addressing both “people” and “place”. We will be working in different ways with citizens, as we need to change the relationship between the citizen and the state. We will work in our neighbourhoods to enable citizens to do more for themselves and take greater responsibility for their lives. We will enable them to be involved in delivering services for themselves so they too can be part of a growing mixed economy of service providers ranging from private providers, public agencies and social enterprises. We will roll out our local co-located offices, Failsworth Library, Chadderton Well Being Centre,Page Stoneleigh 35 School etc. Building on our learning from the City Region pilots in East and West Oldham and the Think Family pilot targeted at Derker, we will organize our people based services around a more assertive model of local working where data is shared and resources are targeted through a single assessment and family plan.

RESOLVED

That the questions submitted and answers be noted.

13 TO NOTE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE CABINET HELD ON THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES, INCLUDING THE ATTACHED LIST OF URGENT KEY DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE THE LAST MEETING OF THE COUNCIL, AND TO RECEIVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY ITEMS WITHIN THE MINUTES FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET The following Cabinet Minutes were submitted:

20 th October 2010 10 th November 2010 24 th November 2010 6th December 2010

The following written questions and comments regarding the Cabinet minutes were submitted at the meeting:

(i) Councillor Miah to Councillor McCann regarding page 83 , Item (10), Transfer of Council Owned Land to FCHO Cabinet 20 th October 2010.

“Could Cllr McCann advise on the progress of this scheme?”

(ii) Councillor J Dillon to Councillor Masud regarding page 98, Item 7 One Council Approach to Complaints Handling: Draft Policy Cabinet 24 th November 2010. “Can the Cabinet Member for Customer Services explain the benefits of “one Council approach to complaints handling Policy” to the residents of this Borough?”

(iii) Councillor Wingate to Councillor Alcock regarding page 99, Minute 8 Biomass Supply Chain Project Cabinet 24 th November 2010. “I believe the biomass boiler on St. Mary’s Estate is due for renewal in 2013. Could the Cabinet Member give an update on this?”

(iv) Councillor Dinoff to Councillor Blyth regarding page 93, Minute 8 Dobson Review Cabinet 10 th November 2010. “Following the publicationPage of the Dobson36 Report What lessons have been learnt and what safeguards are we putting in place for the future handling of cases such as this.”

The following verbal questions were raised at the meeting: (v) Councillor Holley to Councillor Thompson regarding page 82, Minute 9 Treasury Management Review 2009/10 Cabinet 10 th November 2010. Could Councillor Thompson provide further detail on the Treasury Management Review 2009/10

(vi) Councillor Stretton to Councillor Masud regarding page 94, Minute 7 Taking the Unity Partnership Forward – Phase 2 Transfer of Services Cabinet 10 th November 2010. Question relating to the Unity Partnership 2 nd phase transfer of services and Mouchel’s financial position. Is Council concerned that Mouchel is in financial trouble?

(vii) Councillor Toor to Councillor Thompson regarding page 82, Minute 9 Treasury Management Review 2009/10 Cabinet 10 th November 2010. Question relating to the total cost of the Vance Miller case and if the Council had adequate Insurance to cover the amount.

(viii) Councillor Hudson to Councillor McCann regarding page 100 Minute 11 Chadderton Cultural Buildings, Cabinet 24 th November 2010. Question relating to any progress made in relation to the disposal of these buildings.

RESOLVED 1. that the Minutes of the Cabinet meetings listed above be noted. 2. that the questions submitted be noted.

14 TO RECEIVE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED FROM APPROPRIATE CABINET MEMBERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN 13 ABOVE The following responses were given to the questions raised at item 13:

1.Councillor McCann to Councillor Miah

Site preparation work started on the three sites in question last month, namely:

• Rufford Close, High Crompton, 3 houses, one 2, one 3 and one 4 bedroomed Page 37 • Hawthorn Road, Hollinwood, 3 houses, two 3 bedroomed, and one 4 bedroomed • Clyde Street, Watersheddings, four houses, two 3 bedroomed, two 4 bedroomed • Building work is due to start in January and the likely completion date is September next year.

I am also very pleased to announce that planning has been approved for two 3 bedroomed houses at Byland Avenue, Roundthorn, which the HCA is in the process of approving. Work will start in 2011.

2.Councillor Masud to Councillor J Dillon

The introduction of the one Council approach to complaints handling policy seeks to address many of the issues identified with the way complaints are currently handled by the Council, these include: • a lack of consistency • poor signposting for complainants • varied recording systems • inadequate management information • unclear roles and responsibilities of officers involved • lack of training for officers • many responses issued outside of the timescales contained within the policy • no officer having clear responsibility for managing the Council’s relationship with the Local Government Ombudsman

With the process driven policy which currently operates our residents feel that we don’t listen to them, that we don’t care, and that we pass them around from pillar to post.

The aim of the new policy is to move from the current process based system to a more person-centred approach which makes the process easier for residents and ensures that they are involved in the decision-making as it takes place, as opposed to only hearing from the Council at the beginning and end of the complaint process.

This new policy and the related implementation will benefit the residents by: • making it easier for them to complain • introducing a better level of ownership and accountability for complaints handling in the Council, • providing easier access to managers and staff who can support them in resolution of their complaints • providing a consistent professional response to complaints • ensuring that the root cause of problems are identified during the handling of a complaint and as a result we recommend service improvements. Page 38 • a more consistent and improved relationship with the Local Government Ombudsman , through named contacts that will ensure problems are identified and resolved early.

In summary under the new policy residents will benefits from a new approach which focuses on the people aspects of delivery, provides an opportunity to strengthen relationships, and build a more effective and professional response to our residents , one that is more consistent and provides us with the opportunity to learn from experiences, so that we may improve our services based on the feedback from our residents.

3.Councillor Alcock to Councillor Wingate

District Heating System of St Mary’s

The current St Mary’s District Heating System provides heat directly to approximately 1,400 FCHO homes and Oldham’s central leisure centre. The current boiler in St Mary’s at the Henshaw Street, Lord Street junction is actually powered by gas from the mains. The three commercial gas boilers were installed in 1997 where prior to that the boilers were powered by coal. The boilers have a peak capacity of 16MW with a potential for the plant to provide heat to a range of town centre sites, like the colleges, police station and many other buildings without risking heat supplies to residents.

The Boiler House refurbishment and lowering carbon emissions

There are a few options being assessed as we speak which include:

Option 1. Retaining 2 gas boilers as back up and installing a 3MW biomass lead boiler. The boiler would provide heat only and be fuelled in the main by wood from Oldham Councils parks operations. This biomass fuel facility will be constructed at Alexandra Park providing local jobs. This 3MW boiler will require approximately 6,000 tonnes of wood chip per annum.

Option 2. Retaining 2 gas boilers as back up and installing 3MWe Gas combined heat and power facility. This facility still uses gas but would produce heat and up to 17million KWH of electricity (Oldham’s whole street lighting stock consumes 10.5 Million KWH per year).

Both options offer a similar lower carbon solution. The building needs replacing whichever option is selected.

Funding of £1.7m has been secured from Europe and British Gas to undertake this programme of works and other funding sources are being explored (potentially Regional Growth Fund) to see the heating pipe workPage expanded 39 to serve new locations.

The EDRF funding will see trained energy advisors work with residents of St Mary’s to help them cut energy costs as well as FCHO who are working to secure funding to provide energy efficiency improvement measures to a selection of properties within the St Mary’s estate.

This is now even more important as fuel prices are continuing to rise and carbon taxes will impact on both the public and the private sectors.

4. Councillor Blyth to Councillor Dinoff The Dobson report was considered in detail by the Audit Committee. It made some recommendations for the Council to consider on the lessons to be learnt. A detailed Action Plan is being prepared based upon this report. This will include the safeguards to be incorporated on future cases. The progress the Council makes on this case will be reported to the Audit Committee on a regular basis and discussed with our external auditors who it is anticipated will monitor the response of the Council.

5. Councillor Thompson to Councillor Holley The treasury Management team are responsible for investment on behalf of the Council. The half year return last week had shown a further reduction in the Council’s debt of 25 million. The team had exceeded targets, delivering 5 times the level of expected return on investment.

6. Councillor Masud to Councillor Stretton

Thank you for your question at Council on 15 th December 2010 with respect to the financial position of Mouchel. Officers continue to be in close contact with Mouchel’s Chief Executive and Finance Director as part of our normal processes. We have already taken all necessary and appropriate steps to reassure ourselves and put in place safeguards to ensure we are financially protected.

I can confirm that the Phase 2 transfer of services is proceeding to plan for service transfer to take place in February 2011. I am confident in the long term future of the partnership and the benefits to Oldham.

As a further demonstration of general confidence in Mouchel, I can advise you that a number of Mouchel’s other large clients have recently signed significant contracts and in addition Mouchel continues to win new business, such as a partnership with Bournemouth Council similar to the Unity Partnership.

7.Councillor Thompson to Councillor Toor

Councillor Blyth advised Councillor Toor that a detailed reply would be sent within 5 working days of the meeting with accurate figures. Page 40

8. Councillor McCann to Councillor Hudson

Councillor McCann informed the meeting that due to the commercial sensitivity of this question he would issue a written response and a reply would be sent to all Members of the Council.

RESOLVED

That the responses given to questions raised at Item 13 be noted.

15 TO RECEIVE OBSERVATIONS ON ANY ITEMS WITHIN THE MINUTES OF THE CABINET RECEIVED ABOVE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET Page 101 Item 6 Budget Proposals 2011/12, Cabinet 6 th December 2010.

Councillor Battye referred to the Protesters outside the Council Offices prior to the meeting and stated that he objected most strongly to Central Government cuts, where Oldham had received the eighteenth worst settlement in the country; he urged the Liberal Democrats to stand up and fight for the people of Oldham by whom they had been elected.

Page 102 Item 7 Repositioning Oldham, Cabinet 6 th December 2010

Councillor McMahon spoke about the recent staff survey in which it had been shown that 52% of the staff thought that the Council was worse than at the time of the last survey.

Page 94 Item 12 Taking the Unity Partnership Forward – Phase 2 Transfer of Services, Cabinet 10 th November 2010.

Councillor McMahon expressed his concerns at the next phase of transfers and urged the Council to stop the phase 2 Transfers until more information is available.

Page 101 Item 6 Budget Proposals 2011/12, Cabinet 6 th December 2010.

Councillor McMahon spoke against the Budget Proposals.

RESOLVED

That the observations be noted.

Page 41 16 TO RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM APPROPRIATE CABINET MEMBERS TO OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE In response to Councillor Battye, Councillor Thompson stated that cuts had to be made; if cuts were not made where would the money come from? She pledged to fight for a better settlement.

In response to Councillor McMahon, Councillor Thompson reminded the meeting that the staff survey that had been carried out three years ago had been that bad that it had been suppressed.

In response to Councillor McMahon, Councillor Masud advised that Mouchel had met all but one of its targets.

In response to the observations made Councillor Sykes referred to the criticism to the budget proposal and commented that no alternative had been presented. The Council needed to live within its means and a failure to move to phase 3 could leave the Council open to huge compensation costs. RESOLVED

That the responses to the observations be noted. 17 NOTICES OF MOTION (a) Councillor Lord MOVED and Councillor Masud SECONDED the following notice of motion: “In recent elections there has been considerable concern from residents that the present postal vote arrangements are leading to wide scale abuse of the system.

It is well known that in certain households a single person is able to control the votes of the whole family and it is also known that at some addresses there are far more people registered than the house could hold.

It is considered that introduction of a set of eligibility criteria for applicants could significantly reduce the current abuse of the system”

Councillor Masud spoke in support of the Motion Councillor Judge spoke on the Motion Councillor Pendlebury spoke in support of the Motion

Councillor Hudson spoke in support of the Motion

Councillor McMahon spoke in support of the Motion but with certain conditions being imposed.

Councillor Bashforth spoke on the Motion

Councillor Ur Rehman spoke on the Motion Page 42

Councillor Hibbert spoke in support of the Motion

Councillor Jabbar spoke in support of the Motion

On a vote being taken the Motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED 1. That the Council write to the Boroughs MP’s seeking their support for amendment of the postal vote system to introduce a set of eligibility criteria.

2. That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Electoral Commission seeking a review of the postal vote system and the introduction of a set of eligibility criteria for applicants.

(b) Councillor McCann MOVED and Councillor Eileen Hulme SECONDED the following notice of motion:

1. “Oldham Council recognises that the economic policies of the previous Labour government contributed massively to the current national deficit which is both structural and cyclical, and that regardless of which party had won the general election in May 2010 massive reductions in public spending would have been inevitable.

2. Oldham Council notes that in his last pre-budget review the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said that there would be £72 billion of cuts starting from the 1 st April 2011. And further notes Alan Johnson, the new Shadow Chancellor, has said that he broadly supports that position.

3. Oldham Council recognises that as a consequence of the comprehensive spending review, public spending in 2015 will be at a similar share of national income to that in 2006 – after nine years of a Labour government.

4. Oldham Council also notes moves to give local councils the ability to borrow against business rates and supports that approach.

5. Oldham Council further welcomes the removal of ring fencing from government grants to local authorities, which will allow the current Lib Dem/Conservative joint administration to make the best choices for the people of Oldham Borough.”

This Council therefore resolves to request the Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcoming the new financial freedoms announced within the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Councillor Jabbar MOVED and Councillor Ur-Rehman SECONDED the following amendment:Page 43

Para 1 – delete after ‘recognises that the’ and insert;

‘internal banking crisis contributed massively to the current national deficit and that of £180bn is solely through the bank bail out. The Council also recognises that the deficit in the month prior to the credit crunch was at exactly the same level (42.5 of GDP) as April 1997 under the then Conservative Government. On this basis the council takes a dim view of petty party politics being employed to create a smokescreen for the recently announced ideological cuts announced by the government.’

So the revised paragraph reads;

1. Oldham Council recognises that the internal banking crisis contributed massively to the current national deficit and that of i £180bn is solely through the bank bail out. The Council also recognises that the deficit in the month prior to the credit crunch ii was at exactly the same level (42.5 of GDP) as April 1997 under the then Conservative Government. On this basis the council takes a dim view of petty party politics being employed to create a smokescreen for the recently announced ideological cuts announced by the government.

Para 2 delete all after ‘Oldham Council’ and insert;

‘ notes the continuous pledge by the administration to ‘put Oldham first and politics second’ and as such no party will support decisions which disproportionately affect the people of Oldham. This Council believes that changes to Housing Benefit rates, social housing rent levels and reductions in Area Base Grant all disproportionately affect poorer towns.’

So the revised paragraph reads;

2. Oldham Council notes the continuous pledge by the administration to ‘put Oldham first and politics second’ and as such no party will support decisions which disproportionately affect the people of Oldham. This Council believes that changes to Housing Benefit rates, social housing rent levels and reductions in Area Base Grant all disproportionately affect poorer towns.

Para 3 delete all, insert new paragraph;

3. Oldham Council objects to a the recent Comprehensive Spending Review which disproportionately affects the poorest in society whilst allowing wealthy bankers who almost brought our country to it’s knees continue to be awarded big bonuses. It is noted that the budget announced in Oct 2010 affects the bottom 10% of earners the hardest.

Insert new Para 4

Page 44 4. Oldham Councils notes that the cost to be exchequer of tax avoidance is estimated at £25billion and as such objects to the government seeking advice on savings from Sir Philip Green, who according to reports has himself evaded millions of pounds of tax. This Council believes that to have any credibility the government must ensure that it tackles the wealthy few rather than attack the hard working majority. On this basis this Council agrees with Rt. Hon Vince Cable MP when he says “'at a time when the Government has an enormous deficit to deal with, we can't afford to indulge tax avoidance'.

Renumber Para 4 to new Para 5 then add after’ supports that approach.’

However, this Council is disappointed that the decision to increase the rate of borrowing through the PWLB which will lead to higher costs of borrowing for important local investments.

So the revised paragraph reads;

5. Oldham Council also notes moves to give local councils the ability to borrow against business rates and supports that approach. However, this Council is disappointed that the decision to increase the rate of borrowing through the PWLB which will lead to higher costs of borrowing for important local investments.

Renumber Para 5 to new Para 6 delete all after ‘grants to local authorities.’

So the revised paragraph reads;

6. Oldham Council further welcomes the removal of ring fencing from government grants to local authorities.

Delete all after “This council therefore” and insert new para;

This Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting that he provides evidence to his claim that the budget proposals are ‘progressive and fair in light of evidence to the contrary.

This Council instructs of the Chief Executive to write to the borough’s MP’s to make then aware of this motion and to ask that they continue to fight unfair cuts for the people of Oldham.

Motion to read:

“1. Oldham Council recognises that the internal banking crisis contributed massively to the current national deficit and that of £180bn is solely through the bank bail out. The Council also recognises that the deficit in the month prior to the credit crunch was at exactly the same level (42.5 of GDP) as April 1997 under the then Conservative Government. On this basis the council takes a dim view of petty partyPage politics 45 being employed to create a smokescreen for the recently announced ideological cuts announced by the government.

3. Oldham Council objects to the recent Comprehensive Spending Review which disproportionately affects the poorest in society whilst allowing wealthy bankers who almost brought our country to its knees continue to be awarded big bonuses. It is noted that the budget announced in Oct 2010 affects the bottom 10% of earners the hardest.

4. Oldham Councils notes that the cost to the exchequer of tax avoidance is estimated at £25billion and as such objects to the government seeking advice on savings from Sir Philip Green, who according to reports has himself evaded millions of pounds of tax. This Council believes that to have any credibility the government must ensure that it tackles the wealthy few rather than attack the hard working majority. On this basis this Council agrees with Rt. Hon Vince Cable MP when he says “'at a time when the Government has an enormous deficit to deal with, we can't afford to indulge tax avoidance'’.

6. Oldham Council further welcomes the removal of ring fencing from government grants to local authorities.

This Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the borough’s MP’s to make then aware of this motion and to ask that they continue to fight unfair cuts for the people of Oldham.

This Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Borough’s MP’S to make them aware of this motion and to ask that they continue to fight unfair cuts that will disproportionately affect the people of Oldham.”

On being put to the vote the Amendment was LOST with 28 cast in favour of the AmendmentPage and 3146 votes against.

On a vote being taken the original motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED

(i) That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer welcoming the new financial freedoms announced within the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

(ii) That the Notice of Motion in relation to the proposed cuts in Disability Living Allowances be deferred until the next meeting of the Council.

(iii) That the Notice of Motion in relation to registering support for a call on tougher rules on banks, disclosure of bonus and salary payments be withdrawn.

18 REPORT OF COUNCILLOR HOWARD SYKES, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - BUDGET PROPOSALS 2011/12 Council AGREED to suspend Council Procedure Rules to enable this matter to be considered at Item 10 of the Council Summons.

Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Thompson SECONDED the report of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member Performance and Value for Public Money, which presented the first phase of the Joint Administration's proposed budget for 2011/12. Councillor Harrison MOVED and Councillor Akhtar SECONDED the following amendment: “This Council believes that for a consultation to be meaningful, it must be a genuine attempt to listen and learn from those consulted. This Council does not believe in carrying out consultation simply to satisfy a legal requirement or as a token gesture. On this basis it is proposed to remove all adult social care cuts from the budget options until full consultation is carried out with service users in line with the legal requirement. Although the recommendation does give some room, in that it proposes to take into account consultation responses; if the consultation is genuine then the outcome of the consultation may change the option to such an extent that it requires further approval from Council. None of the Adult Social Care options require approval to allow consultation to take place, and in all options listed consultation has already begun, but is still ongoing. In most cases this will be completed in January/February 2011.

Page 47 If this matter is considered pre determined it would leave the Council open to legal challenge and destroy trust between the Council, service users, carers and other representative bodies.”

Council AGREED to suspend Council Procedure Rules for a period of 20 minutes to enable full discussion to take place on this Item of business.

Councillor McMahon spoke in support of the amendment Councillor Stanton spoke against the amendment. Councillor Jabbar spoke in support of the amendment Councillor J Hulme spoke against the amendment. Councillor Lord spoke against the amendment. Councillor Ball spoke in support of the amendment. In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on the amendment. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Akhtar S For Knowles R Against Alcock M Against Knox K Against Ball G For Larkin J For Barker For Lord B Against Bashforth For Malik A For Battye John For Martin P Against Beeley B Against Masud M Against Blyth R Against McArdle James Against Brownridge B For McCann J Against Buckley M Against McDonald H For Butterworth G For McLaren C For Chadderton O For McMahon J For Dawson B For Miah Jilad Against Dawson L Against Pendlebury K Against Dillon J Against Qumer S For Dillon P Against Roughley A Against Dinoff M Against Salamat A For Harrison P For Sedgwick V Against Heffernan D Against Shaw For Hibbert D For Stanton J Against Hindle R Against Page 48 Stretton J For Holley P Against Sykes H Against Hudson J Against Thompson L Against Hulme E Against Toor Y For Hulme J Against Ur-Rehman A For Hussain F For Wheeler C Against Iqbal J For Williamson D Against Jones D For Wingate A Against Judge B For Wrigglesworth J For

On the vote being taken 27 votes were cast for the Amendment and 31 votes cast against, the Amendment was therefore LOST.

A vote was then taken on the original Motion and in accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on the amendment. The Vote was recorded as follows:

Akhtar S Against Knowles R For Alcock M For Knox K For Ball G Against Larkin J Against Barker Against Lord B For Bashforth Against Malik A Against Battye John Against Martin P For Beeley B For Masud M For Blyth R For McArdle James For Brownridge B Against McCann J For Buckley M For McDonald H Against Butterworth G Against McLaren C Against Chadderton O Against McMahon J Against Dawson B Against Miah Jilad For Dawson L For Pendlebury K For Dillon J For Qumer S Against Dillon P For Roughley A For Dinoff M For Salamat A Against Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For Heffernan D For Shaw Against Hibbert D Against Stanton J For Hindle R For Page 49 Stretton J Against Holley P For Sykes H For Hudson J For Thompson L For Hulme E For Toor Y Against Hulme J For Ur-Rehman A Against Hussain F Against Wheeler C For Iqbal J Against Williamson D For Jones D Against Wingate A For Judge B Against Wrigglesworth J Against

On a vote being taken 31 votes were cast for the original motion and 27 votes were cast against. The Motion was therefore CARRIED.

RESOLVED

That the budget options as set out in Appendix C to the report, totalling £15.734m, be approved, subject to the conclusion of relevant consultation with all necessary consultees.

19 REPORT OF COUNCILLOR LYNNE THOMPSON, CABINET MEMBER, PERFORMANCE AND VALUE FOR MONEY - FEES AND CHARGES POLICY Councillor Thompson MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the report which sought approval for a corporate framework within which all future decisions on the implementation and/or changes in the levels of fees and charges would be considered and approved.

On a vote being taken, the recommendations were CARRIED.

RESOLVED

(i) That the Framework outlined within the report be agreed and used to establish future changes; (ii) That the Framework be developed as part of the Council’s medium Term Financial Strategy and that a review of all current charges be undertaken on an annual basis; (iii) That the price increases, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be agreed, as scheduled, to become effective from 4 th January 2011, subject to the conclusion of relevant consultation with all the necessary consultees.

20 REPORT OF COUNCILLOR JOHN MCCANN, CABINET MEMBER FOR REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT - HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER- TRANSFER AGREEMENT

Page 50 Councillor R Hindle declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the Item by virtue of his wife being an employee of First Choice Homes and left the room for consideration thereof.

Council AGREED to suspend Council Procedure Rules to enable this matter to be considered at Item 11 of the Council Summons.

Councillor McCann MOVED AND Councillor Blyth SECONDED the report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Environment, which set out the key terms of the transfer agreement for approval, to obtain Council Authority to proceed to completion subject to obtaining ministerial consent and for Council to authorise and delegate power to the Executive Director of Economy, Places and Skills, the Borough Solicitor, Borough Treasurer and Cabinet portfolio Holder.

Councillor McCann spoke in support of the report. Councillor Blyth spoke in support of the report. Councillor McMahon spoke against the report. Councillor J Hulme spoke in support of the report.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 12.3 at least five Members requested a recorded vote on this motion. The Vote was recorded as follows.

Akhtar S Against Knowles R For Alcock M For Knox K For Ball G Against Larkin J Against Barker For Lord B For Bashforth Against Malik A Against Battye John Against Martin P For Beeley B For Masud M For Blyth R For McArdle James For Brownridge B Against McCann J For Buckley M For McDonald H Against Butterworth G Against McLaren C Against Chadderton O Against McMahon J Against Dawson B Against Miah Jilad For Dawson L For Pendlebury K For Dillon J For Qumer S Against Dillon P For Roughley A For Dinoff M For Salamat A Against Harrison P Against Sedgwick V For Page 51 Heffernan D For Shaw Against Hibbert D Against Stanton J For Holley P For Stretton J Against Hudson J For Sykes H For Hulme E For Thompson L For Hulme J For Toor Y Against Hussain F Against Ur-Rehman A Against Iqbal J Against Wheeler C For Jones D Against Williamson D For Judge B Against Wingate A For Wrigglesworth J Against

On a recorded vote being taken, the motion was CARRIED by 31 votes for and 26 votes against. RESOLVED: That 1. Completion of the transfer subject to obtaining consent from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be approved.

2. The terms of the Transfer Agreement and development agreement be approved.

3. In accordance with the powers delegated to him in the Council’s Constitution, the Borough Solicitor confirms to the funders that the Council has the authority to enter into the Transfer Agreement by signing a legal opinion to that effect.

4. Authority be delegated to the Executive Director Economy Place and Skills, in consultation with Borough Solicitor, the Borough Treasurer and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Environment, to resolve any matters outstanding.

5. The Borough Solicitor be authorised to sign and seal the Collateral Funders Warranty, Transfer Agreement, Development Agreement, TR5 and any other deeds that need sealing and to sign any ancillary documentation on behalf of the Council.

21 REPORT OF COUNCILLOR ROD BLYTH CABINET MEMBER, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND PUBLIC PROTECTION - REVIEW OF LICENSING POLICY Councillor Blyth MOVED and Councillor Hudson SECONDED a report of the Executive Director Economy Place and Skills which sought Members’ approval of the revised Statement of Licensing Policy and also sought their views on whether there would be Page 52 sufficient cause to introduce into the revised policy a “Cumulative Impact Policy” for the town centre.

On a vote being taken, the recommendations were CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED

(i) That the revised Statement of Licensing Policy as detailed in the report be approved. (ii) That, in order to continue the promotion of the four licensing objectives, officers be instructed to draw up detailed proposals for a cumulative impact policy with a view to a formal consultation on the proposals being undertaken. (iii) That officers be instructed to undertake an analysis as to whether there would be a need for a cumulative impact policy for any of the district centres and if this was found to be the case this also to be built into the consultation.

22 REPORT OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR - AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor McMahon SECONDED a report of the Borough Solicitor, which proposed changes to the Council's Constitution.

On a vote being taken, the recommendations were CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the amendments proposed in the body of the report be accepted and the Constitution amended accordingly.

23 REPORT OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR - APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL Councillor Lord MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the report requesting Members to give consideration to the process of appointing to vacancies on the Independent Remuneration Panel.

On a vote being taken, the recommendation was CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED

(i) That a public advert be placed seeking two panel members; (ii) That nominations be sought from the business community and trade union representative organisations; Page 53 (iii) That a report be presented to the February Council meeting with recommendations on the composition of the Panel.

24 REPORT OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR - COUNCIL DATES 2011/2012 It was MOVED by Councillor Sykes and SECONDED by Councillor McMahon that the proposed meeting dates for the 2011/2012 municipal year for Council, Cabinet, Planning Committee, Licensing Committee (and Sub Committees), Audit Committee and District Partnerships be approved subject to the date of 21 st March 2012 for the Royton, Shaw and Crompton District Partnership being altered to 19 th March 2012.

Without the necessity for a vote the amendment was CARRIED.

On a vote being taken the substantive motion was CARRIED unanimously.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the following minor amendment, the dates for the municipal year 2011/2012, marked “Provisional” as set out in the report, be approved by Council:

“The date of the Royton, Shaw and Crompton District Partnership be changed from 21 st March 2012 to 19 th March 2012 “

25 REVIEW OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY COUNCIL ON THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 RESOLVED

That the actions be noted.

The meeting started at 6.10 pm and ended at 9.50 pm

Page 54 Agenda Item 6

COUNCIL

ND 2 FEBRUARY 2011

LIST OF PETITIONS

Executive Director, Economy, Place & Skills

1. Parking Issues – Marlborough Street (received 27 th October 2010) (77 signatures)

2. Proposed Parking Restrictions in Uppermill (received 16 th December 2010) (753 signatures)

Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 56 Agenda Item 411

! " #$ %& " ' " ( )*+* * * )**) * , *- *. *)) */ *0*# ) 1 2 "% *3 )"% *4( * " # * 0 )# ! " )*+$*-. * ( )3 2 $ . !"#$%&"!%%&'(")&"# *+$,!+-)#.! .(& 3 $ ) ) " . / * !,!&0! !,1( (#&*"%*'"#! !%#&"("),*"# (,#* 2(##! #*-!+&%,$%%!+(##.! 2!!#&" " ( ) )) ) ) 56& 7 'N 0 # 7 2 4 ) # %" . 3 *(44 *0!#.!2&"$#!%*'#.!1(%#2!!#&" .!1+*"#. !4#!2-! 04#29:4! 3 ) # ). ;6. " 3 3 )"%( ) $ )$% ) .<) % $ $ $ ). ;6. # )) " 3 0 ) 2 *$ S # )) +)4 ) ; 2 *$ ) )) S # )) "$ ) ) # )) " ) ).

Page 57 Page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

Page 58 Page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

Page 59 Page 5 > *241&(",!:&#.#.!*0! "2!"#;% ("%4( !",) !"+(< * (22! 3 )) 0 ) S I $ ) ) I ) ) !B ) ) . ) )$ $) ) I) $*$ $ ) ) ) .3 "% ) ) ))) ) ) $ I *$ $)$ I . ) ) )) ) $ S I ) ). 04#29:4! 3 ! ' ) )I!B ) E ' G ) )( ) $ + ) # "# )L I "# )!7%J!6 %ME ) ( S $ ) E ' ) I * )) E ) )' I ) % . 9 !(%$ )("( !2!"# # (#! ) #(#!2!"#("+""$(1"0!%#2!"# # (#! )&+)!( !0&!:!4* #< " ) $ 3 )"%$ $ A S ) * I) ) 3 #. 04#29:4! 3 . !(#! (",.!%#! (%#! *24*%&#&*"(1"(1)%&%("+ $ 0!) 3 )) 4( $ ) " )#* ) ).

Page 60 Page 6 ; 5$ ) * ) ) * )$ G ) I ) .3 $)$ ) ) )% ) )) $ ) .5 )* ) ) ) ) ) . 04#29:4! 3 ) !BB*>BB.@ ) " )# )* G 2 . 1&2(#! .(" !,#&*"1(" " ) $ G 9) *"" ) 3 )"%$ )) ) S "" )) $ 9$" ). 04#29:4! 3 ! ' ) "" % * $ S * ) ) $ )$ $ E ' "" ) )" )) $ E ) ' )% ) ) )$. / *22$"&,(#&" ("+" ( &" (1'!( 4+(#!("+$#1&"!1("'* < 3 )) G 9) * ) 4 ) 3 )"%$ )) ) $% )% $ * ) ) % F ) " .3 I ) $% )% ) ))) $% ) A$ ) . 3 I ) ) ) ) $ ) * ) G * ) ) . 3 " ) 9) * )4 9) S .

Page 61 Page 7 B S) ) ) 4 $ &4'. ) $$) )) ) ) $ $) $ $ E$ 4$ $ * ) $ ) ) S $ ) ." $ ( )) J FJ J 4 *$ $ ) ) E )$ ) I ) ) * 2 $ ) )JJ). 3 )) $ $% $ ) " ). 3 " $) $$)) )4 ! *) ) I ) ) ) % ( ) . % $ ) )4 * ) . ? )$ 4 *$ I ) )% *$ ) ( ) $ & ) ' 4 ) ) S $ . 3 $ ) ) ) $) $ )) )) ) )$ J ) * )) . 04#29:4! 3 ! ' ) ) A E ' ):9 AE ' I A ) * ) )E )' I ) ( ) $ & ) ' 4 ) ) S $ E ' )% $ # A * ) $ " )0 &; )B' I * .7 E ' S P F$ Q )& @ 'E ' ) * )) ) )$ & 'E )

Page 62 Page 8 7 ' $ G& ' 4 !B %* )" . 3 $+ !#<("+!)*"+ )) - 2 S$ )) $ ) ) ) ) A )) S )3< &3<'.3 ) ) ) ) ) 2 " # ) 0$&"#0'.< * ) $ ) ))) " & " '. 3 " ) ) ) )(+$)$)* S * )) $) % ) . 04#29:4! 3 ! ' ) ) "#0E ) ' * * )) )(+ . 5 =,1$%&*"*' !%%("+$-1&, 04#29:4! 3 * ) )$ # &;' 9 @6* ) ( )) G $ ) ) ( ) ) ) ) & ' # ) ) $) * * ) ) ) ) )$ . 6 $+ !#< (4(,&#)4#&*"% 3 4( ) ) ) * )) " * S S ) ) ) " ) . 04#29:4! 3 . / !4* #*'#.!%%!#("( !2!"# #!! &" *$4*'#.!/#.,#*-! " ( ) )) ) ) # %" . )) # $ S ) . Page 63 Page 9 6 " ( )I) ( ) $ >.B$ .5$ ) ) $ ) )) $ ) # ) # )) +S ) ) ). 04#29:4! ) ) )( ) ! ' < *$ J ) )*) ) E ) ' ( +9) ) +) % *+) ) ) ) $ . / $( #! 1) *"# (,#4+(#! " ) $ - 2 S$ )) $ ) ) " I$ A. 04#29:4! 3 . 3 ). ) ).B

Page 64 Page 10 GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE AUTHORITY

22nd November 2010

Meeting commenced: 2.00 p.m. Meeting ended: 3.13 p.m.

PRESENT: Councillor Paul Murphy – in the Chair

Ms. Elaine Belton, Councillor Sam Cohen, Councillor Pat Colclough, Mrs Cathy Conchie, Councillor Dave Goddard, Mrs Sharron Hardman, Mr Majid Hussain, Councillor Joe Kitchen, Councillor David Lancaster, Mrs Christine McGawley JP, Councillor Keith Pendlebury, Councillor Charles Rigby, Mr Lee Rowbotham, Councillor Bernard Sharp, Councillor Noel Spencer and Mrs Pamela Taylor

OFFICER IN ATTENDANCE:

Barbara Spicer, Chief Executive Russell Bernstein, Executive Director Alan Westwood, Treasurer to the Authority Alison Connelly, Head of Governance and Policy Sam Frenz, Head of Scrutiny and Engagement Nikki Park, Democratic Services Manager

Peter Fahy, Chief Constable Simon Byrne, Deputy Chief Constable Lynne Potts, Assistant Chief Officer (Business Resources)

56. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Ian Hargreaves.

57. 2011/12 – 2014/15 STRATEGIC FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POLICING SERVICES IN GREATER MANCHESTER

The Chief Constable and the Treasurer to the Authority submitted a joint report informing Members of the latest financial projections following the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, and the Force’s plans for achieving a balanced budget for 2011/12, and the impact the plans may have on the provision of policing services across Greater Manchester, and on police officers and staff who work for Greater Manchester Police.

The Chief Constable commented that (a) the proposals affected dedicated members of staff and any jargon used did not underestimate the impact that this would have, (b) a large percentage of the budget was spent on staffing, and over a four year period, the reductions would have an overall impact on approximately 3000 staff, (c) Programme Optimus had looked at all Force activities to identify where efficiencies

Page1 65 Page 11 Great Manchester Police Authority 22 November 2010

could be made, (d) current legislation did not allow police officers to be made redundant, (e) there would be a recruitment freeze, (f) discussions would be held with the Home Office about how the force was measured and about how to liaise with other agencies, (g) there was a commitment to reduce management costs, (h) this had been a painful process, a considerable amount of work had been done and he was grateful to those staff who had come forward with suggestions for savings, (i) the force were now in the process of centralising a number of services and ideas would be progressed over the next four years, (j) he was grateful for the assistance provided by Unison, and (k) the event held for staff on 16 th November, 2010, had caused a lot of upset and uncertainty, and the consultation process to follow was extremely important, as there was a need to get this right and to be fair.

The Assistant Chief Officer (Business Resources) reported (i) on the anticipated savings from each of the work streams to achieve a balanced budget for the years 2011/12 to 2014/15, highlighting that all areas of the budget would be actively explored (ii) on the anticipated change in total staff numbers over the four year period, highlighting that the 90 day notice process had commenced on 18 th November, 2010, and expressions of interest for voluntary redundancies had been sought, and this offer would remain open until 16 th December, 2010, (iii) that following the staff briefing held on 16 th November, 2010, managers had met with staff and a help line had also been introduced to provide support, and (iv) on the implications for policing services.

The Treasurer to the Authority reported on (a) the strategic financial outlook over the next four years, highlighting that the savings to be achieved were heavily frontloaded, and (b) national reductions as the specific implications for the Authority would not be known until early December, 2010, therefore, funding projections could change.

The Chairman commented that the staff meeting held on 16 th November, 2010, had been extremely difficult, and stressed that the Authority and Force were committed to protecting frontline services, however, back office staff were equally important as they provided valuable support.

A Member referred to the management reductions, and the legislation relating to those Police Officers who had done 30 years or more service. The Chief Constable commented that attempts were being made to reduce management costs, however, reductions in police senior ranks could not be achieved until they chose to leave the organisation. With regard to regulation A19, the debate on this needed to wait until after the staffing consultation period, but it was considered to be blunt legislation which was subject to legal challenge.

In response to a question raised with regard to what the benefits would be if experienced officers were lost, the Chief Constable reported that it would release further cash to support the frontline and also create opportunities for movement.

A Member referred to the Optimus project and asked what was a realistic front/back office split. The Chief Constable commented that he had tried not to chase a particular percentage, each function had been looked at in detail to identify where savings could be made, however, it was a difficult decision as some elements could

Page2 66 Page 12 Great Manchester Police Authority 22 November 2010 be controlled by the Force, but a lot related to requirements placed on them, and this had been communicated to the Home Office.

In response to a question raised with regard to how many back office staff were moving to the frontline, and what were the consequences of the proposals, the Chief Constable reported that a detailed process had been followed which had involved the Chairman of the Value for Money Committee, and a copy of the presentation made to staff could be made available to Members if required.

A Member commented that voluntary early redundancies could create an in-balance in departments, and whilst support was being offered to those staff who would be leaving, had any provision been made for those remaining? The Assistant Chief Officer (Business Resources) reported that work was being undertaken with Human Resources, briefings were being held with all managers and staff, they would be fully involved in the implementation plans, and support would be provided to those staying or leaving.

A Member commented on the Force being committed to the development of neighbourhood policing, and the protection of funding for Police Community Support Officers for the next 12 months, as it was hoped that they would remain for the future.

A Member referred to the financial impact the changes could have on partners and questioned what was being done to interact with partners. The Chief Constable commented that through the Public Protection Commission there was an opportunity to liaise with partners to avoid duplication of services and to encourage greater working together. With regard to neighbourhood policing, he was still waiting to see what the national performance picture would be as this may present a big opportunity if targets were measured differently. The Chairman commented that a presentation had been made to the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities detailing the pressures on the Authority and the Force, highlighting the need for a holistic approach, and the need for funding to be allocated appropriately. The Chief Executive reported that a meeting would be held with the Leaders of each Local Authority to discuss the impact of the budgets cuts on policing in their area.

In response to a question raised with regard to communicating the proposals to the public, the Chief Constable reported that (i) there had been negative publicity, and it had been difficult to get the message across that there were inefficiencies and everything was being done to maintain a level of service, (ii) further consultation would be looked at, and (iii) there was a need to balance the public demand/priorities and where the Authority saw the broader picture and threats.

A Member referred to the improvements in performance, and expressed concern that the proposed reductions could result in an increase in crime. The Chief Constable commented that there was no simple link between a reduction in police officers and the level of crime, but the police do a lot more than just tackle crime, therefore, it was inevitable that with a significant reduction in numbers, the service to the public would be affected, however, all would be done to find new ways of working to keep this impact to the public to a minimum.

Page3 67 Page 13 Great Manchester Police Authority 22 November 2010

A Member commented on the need to keep partners sighted on the policing plan to ensure they know the overall picture. The Chief Executive indicated that feedback from the meeting to be held with the Leaders of each Local Authority would be provided to Members.

A Member expressed concern with regard to multi-agency working as the options available to the public may no longer exist. The Chief Constable confirmed that this was a concern, but he hoped that through the Public Protection Commission this would be minimised.

RESOLVED: (1) THAT the approach being taken by the Force towards the delivery of financial savings be endorsed.

(2) THAT the potential impact on policing services be noted.

(3) THAT a copy of the presentation made to police staff at the meeting held at the Reebok Stadium on 16 th November, 2010, be circulated to Members, and that, if considered necessary, a special meeting of the Police Authority be convened.

(4) THAT feedback, following the meeting with all 10 Local Authority Leaders, to discuss the impact of the budget cuts on policing, be provided to all Members.

Page4 68 Page 14 2. ASSOCIATION OF GREATER MANCHESTER AUTHORITIES

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 26 TH NOVEMBER 2010 AT STOCKPORT TOWN HALL

Present: -

In the Chair Councillor Peter Smith (Wigan)

BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris Sean Harriss

BURY COUNCIL Councillor Bob Bibby Mike Kelly

MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese Howard Bernstein

OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Howard Sykes Charlie Parker

ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Dale Mulgrew Roger Ellis

SALFORD CC Councillor John Merry Barbara Spicer

STOCKPORT MBC Councillor David Goddard Eamonn Boylan

TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Kieran Quinn Steven Pleasant

TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge Janet Callender

WIGAN COUNCIL Joyce Redfearn Paul McKevitt

CHESHIRE EAST John Nicholson

GMITA Councillor Keith Whitmore Councillor Ian McDonald Councillor Andrew Fender

GMPTE David Leather

GMWDA Councillor Michael Young John Bland

Page 69 2. GMFRS Councillor Paul Shannon Ged Murphy Steve McGuirk

COMMISSION NEW ECONOMY Mike Emmerich

MARKETING MANCHESTER Paul Simpson Rachel Combie AGMA SCRUTINY Councillor Simon Ashley Amanda Carbery

AGMA John Hawkins Karen Tierney Julie Gaskell

91/10 APOLOGIES

Councillor Irene Davidson, Councillor Wesley Fitzgerald, Councillor Bernard Priest, Councillor Neil Swannick, Mark Sanders, Councillor Paul Murphy, Russell Bernstein, Erika Wenzel, Councillor Ian Marks, Diana Terris,

92/10 MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE BOARD 29 OCTOBER 2010

It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.

93/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor John Merry declared a personal interest in the agenda item concerning Lancashire County Cricket Club redevelopment, NWDA Investment scheme.

94/10 LANCASHIRE COUNTY CRICKET CLUB REDEVELOPMENT : NWDA INVESTMENT

The Chair drew members attention to an item raised by Councillor Mathew Colledge, Trafford Council, regarding Lancashire County Cricket Club redevelopment; NWDA Investment scheme and gave concern over the impact that the potential reconsideration of Government with the North West Regional Development Agency’s investment in the scheme could have on Greater Manchester (with particular reference to Old Trafford Cricket ground)and the wider North West.

The Executive Board AGREED for a letter of support be sent to Mark Prisk, Minister of State, Department of Business, Innovation & Skills.

95/10 FORWARD PLAN

The Executive Board AGREED to note the report. Page 70 2. 96/10 GREATER MANCHESTER STRATEGY DELIVERY PLAN: UPDATES

Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester CC presented to Members a summary of progress across nine of the eleven Strategic Priorities of the Greater Manchester Strategy (GMS). The report also updated the Board on the outcome of the consultation process on the GMS indicators

The Board AGREED:

1. The five headline indicators set out in section 4.1 of the report as the basis for summarising Greater Manchester’s overall progress in delivering the priorities of the GMS.

2. To note that the complete suite of Headline and Strategic Priority indicators are due to be finalised and baselined by the end of March 2011.

97/10 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY

The Executive Board received a report from Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive, Manchester CC informing members of approval of Greater Manchester’s proposals for a Combined Authority and giving an indication of Ministers intention to proceed with laying an Order of Parliament within the next few months.

The report set out the indicative timetable to be undertaken by CLG and DfT, and the steps to be taken by AGMA and GMITA to put the new arrangements in place by 1 April 2011.

The Chair, on behalf of the Executive Board, thanked Sir Howard Bernstein for all the work involved with this process.

The Board AGREED:

1. To welcome the announcement by Ministers regarding the Combined Authority including the statement of their intentions to lay an Order before Parliament;

2. To note the indicative timetable set out in the report and authorised officers to take whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with this timetable to enable the new arrangements to come into operation by 1 April, 2011.

3. To note that further reports will be submitted to the Executive Board, GMITA and the district councils in accordance with the indicative timetable and to urge districts in particular to make appropriate arrangements for meetings.

4. The indicative timetable agreed by the Executive Board is set out below:-

January AGMA to consider the draft Operating Agreement, the amendments to the AGMA Constitution, the detailed protocols relating to the CA’s economic development and transport functions and the schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities February GMITA to consider the draft Operating Agreement and the detailed transport protocols Page 71 2. February District Executives/Cabinets then full Councils to consider all the documentation as considered by AGMA plus agree the appointment of members and substitute members of the CA and TfGMC. February Shadow CA to consider draft constitution and Standing Orders and Shadow TfGMC to consider final operating agreement and sub- committee structure 1 April CA and TfGMC meet to adopt constitutional documentation and, in the case of TfGMC, to elect Chair/Vice Chair, appoint committees etc

98/10 NORTH WEST REGIONAL TRANSITION

Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive, Manchester CC updated Members on progress in the development of a Transition Plan designed to secure the orderly and effective transition to new regional arrangements. The report submitted set out the emerging principles across each of the nine main work streams and informed Members on how the work would be taken forward.

The Board AGREED:

1. To note that a further meeting of the Regional Transition Team has been arranged for the 29 th November, and outcomes will be reported to the Regional Leaders Board at their meeting on 10 December.

2. To note progress with this work and endorse the emerging principles from each of the project work streams.

99/10 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SPENDING REVIEW ON GREATER MANCHESTER

Mike Emmerich, Chief Executive, Commission for the New Economy, presented to the Executive an interim report which assessed the effects of the Spending Review and broader current economic climate on GM’s growth prospects.

The Board AGREED: To note the report

100/10 REGIONAL GROWTH FUND – ROUND ONE SUBMISSION

Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive, Stockport MBC, introduced a report which set out the background to the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) and sought approval for the process to develop a Round One RGF submission for Greater Manchester.

The Board AGREED:

1. That the Wider Leadership Team in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair be authorised to develop the detailed Round One RGF bid submission.

2. That AGMA Leaders consider the detailed nature of the Greater Manchester bid at their meeting on 17 th December. Page 72 2.

101/10 PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM: DELIVERY OF AGMA’s IMPROVEMENT & EFFICIENCY AGENDA

Janet Callender, Chief Executive, Trafford Council presented to the Board a report which gave an update on progress of AGMA’s Improvement and Efficiency programme, since the last update on 29 th October 2010 and set out the plan for phase 2 of the review.

Councillor John Merry welcomed the report and praised Officers involved in this work; also stating that it was important for continued scrutiny of this agenda.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. To note the activity undertaken since the last report on 29th October and the identification of planned savings in 2011/12 that can be attributed to collaborative activity

2. To review and approve the recommended high level opportunities arising from the work on each of the Priority Theme areas.

3. To endorse the approach to the next stage in the process outlined in the report, leading to proposals and action plans being presented for approval by the end of March 2011 for implementation to commence during 2011/12.

4. That a further progress update report be provided to AGMA Executive Board in January 2011.

102/10 MINIMUM UNIT PRICE FOR ALCOHOL

Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive, Stockport MBC, introduced an interim report of a Task and Finish Group set up to pursue a model, with regard to a bylaw approach,as a campaigning tool with a view to encourage national legislation for a minimum alcohol unit price.

Councillor Cliff Morris, Chair of GM Health Commission stated that alcohol was one of the major life- style related factors causing poor health in Greater Manchester.

Members welcomed the interim report and the work achieved by the Task and Finish Group; along with recognising the complex issues which require more investigation.

The Executive Board AGREED :

1. To endorse the proposal that further work be carried out by the Task and Finish Group to reflect the changing national legislative context for consideration of the minimum unit pricing for alcohol and for the potential deployment of a bylaw, and agreed for the submission of a final report at a later date.

Page 73 2. 2. To recognise that in ensuring the bylaw proposal is practicable and enforceable as an element of the campaign towards national legislation on minimum unit pricing, further work is required to understand and balance the enforcement implications against the benefits of the proposal

3. To endorse that the GM Task and Finish Group to seek support from other areas regionally and nationally, e.g. Cheshire & Merseyside, to form a broader based coalition of support

4. To continue the commitment to the position adopted previously to strongly advocate nationally and locally for a minimum unit price for alcohol given the scale of health and societal harm caused by alcohol misuse in all parts of Greater Manchester.

Separately, in discussions on this item the Executive Board agreed to consider a report at their next meeting on the level of attendance at all Commission meetings since May 2010.

103/10 NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMME: GREATER MANCHESTER RING-FENCED FUNDS

Roger Ellis, Chief Executive, Rochdale Council, presented to the Board an update on progress in delivery of the Greater Manchester programme of the National Affordable Housing Programme. Members were also informed that funding was available in respect of the seven remaining projects from the original £30 million programme.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. To welcome the progress made in partnership with districts, HCA and both housing association and private developers;

2. To approve the seven remaining projects from the original £30 million programme which remain viable and clearly deliverable within the time constraints at a total cost of £3.86m :-

Hale Methodists, Trafford Wastwater Street, Oldham Acorn Mill, Oldham Hare & Hounds, Bolton Brookfield, Manchester Elisabeth Mill, Stockport Byland Avenue, Oldham

3. To extend the delegation of approval of funding for further schemes from the Greater Manchester ring-fenced pot to include additional schemes identified and supported by districts, either from the existing reserve list or in addition to those. This delegation to be to the Chair of the Planning & Housing Commission, in consultation with Roger Ellis as lead Chief Executive for the Commission and advised by the AGMA/HCA Joint Officer Group, subject to evidence of deliverability and value for money being secured to the satisfaction of HCA and the Joint OfficerPage Group; 74 2.

4. That the Joint Officer Group should monitor the progress being made on the schemes approved, and to delegate in similar terms to (3) above decisions to remove and replace any project from the programme where progress is unsatisfactory and delivery therefore at risk; and

5. That the Joint Officer Group should provide monthly reports to Executive Board members on progress, to be circulated electronically.

104/10 GM TRANSPORT FUND SCHEMES: GMTF ASHTON NORTHERN BYPASS STAGE 2

Steven Pleasant, Chief Executive, Tameside MBC, introduced a report which updated Members on the delivery of the Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2 road scheme and sought full approval for the remaining highways works, which were granted conditional approval by AGMA Executive in January 2010.

The Executive Board AGREED; To note the report

105/10 REVIEW OF SCRUTINY ARRANGEMENTS

Councillor Simon Ashley, AGMA Scrutiny, introduced a report which, at the request of the Executive Board on 25 June, summarised a review of scrutiny arrangements taking into account the views of district scrutiny committees and the AGMA Scrutiny Pool alongside the requirements of current or future legislation.

The Executive Board AGREED that officers should now consider the recommendations in the report in light of the announcement on the Combined Authority and design an appropriate system for implementation on 2011/12.

106/10 MINUTES OF SCRUTINY POOL HELD ON 12 NOVEMBER 2010

The Executive Board considered draft minutes of the AGMA Scrutiny Pool meeting held on 12 th November 2010: but raised no issues.

107/10 LEADERS OVERVIEW OF JOINT AUTHORITY BUDGETS

Sean Harriss, Chief Executive, Bolton Council, introduced to Members a report which set out a process for managing scrutiny by the Leaders (and appropriate Treasurers etc) of the joint authority budgets following the informal discussions at Bury on 29 October.

The Executive Board AGREED :-Page 75 2.

That each group of authorities detailed to provide over view of specific Joint Authority budgets should :-

1. Aim to meet - at officer level - with joint authorities as soon as possible, in ordered to discuss review and challenge the information presented to the Leaders in Bury on 29 October

2. Organise - where necessary a further round of officer level meetings as soon as possible after 2 December (i.e. after the Local Government grant settlement is announced) but before the AGMA Executive meeting on 17 December

3. Arrange for meetings at Leader level to take place as soon as possible in the new Year; ideally before 13 January

4. Enable a verbal update on progress to be made by the Chair of BMG (Sean Harriss) to AGMA Chairs & Vice Chairs at their meeting on 13 January; and

5. Present the final outcome of their discussions at the AGMA Executive Board on 28 January; when decisions on the budgets will be taken.

108/10 REVIEW OF AGMA BUDGETS 2011/12 - INITIAL PROPOSALS

Sean Harriss, Chief Executive, Bolton Council, presented a report which set out an initial element of proposed savings from AGMA Unit Budgets for 2011/12 for the Executive Boards endorsement. Members were informed that depending on the outcome of the scrutiny process agreed last month, there may also be further savings identified. If so, these will be considered at the Executive board meeting in January 2012.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. The initial savings of £297.4k set out in the report for reinvestment,

2. To endorse a series of actions proposed by the Wider Leadership Team as regards financial management of the AGMA Units,

3. To receive a further report at their meeting on 17 December setting out the areas proposed for this reinvestment and a redesign of AGMA budgets,

4. To receive a report from the Scrutiny Pool based on opportunities for further potential savings from AGMA Unit budgets in 2011/12; and

5. That as the Scrutiny Pool will not be meeting until Friday 10 December; that their report on this matter can be circulated as a late item, as soon as possible on the week beginning Monday 12 December.

6. That budget reports on Joint Authorities and the AGMA family be submitted to the Executive Board together with budget proposals for the redesign of the Page 76 2. Manchester Family of Economic functions (MIDAS, Marketing Manchester, Commission for the New Economy and Manchester Solutions).

109/10 SECTION 48 GRANTS REVIEW

Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester CC introduced a report, which recommended for the Executive Board approval, criteria for undertaking a review of the Section 48 Grants Scheme as endorsed by AGMA Chairs and Vice Chairs.

Dale Mulgrew, Rochdale Council, Joint Vice Chair of Statutory Functions Committee, requested that Members of the Committee continue to be consulted during the review.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. That the recommended criteria for the review of the Section 48 Grants Scheme as outlined in section 4 of the report be approved.

2. That as a result of the recommendations made at the Statutory Functions Committee on 10 th November 2010 that the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Committee should continue to be consulted during the review.

3. That the 3 month cash limit set by the Board for current revenue clients in 2011/12 should not apply to the Arts Council North West given that this is a Partnership Arrangement with the Council, not a grant.

4. That the consultant John Knell, Intelligence Agency, be appointed to undertake the review, as an extension to his existing commission in relation to the GM Arts Vision.

5. That the Chair and Vice Chairs be authorised to oversee the review to be managed by the Chair of the Wider Leadership Team, Chair of the Business Management Group and the AGMA Secretary, with a substantive report being made on the outcome of the Review in February 2011.

110/10 MARKETING MANCHESTER BUDGET PROPOSALS 2011/12

The Executive Board considered a report which outlined the activity Marketing Manchester had undertaken with the support of AGMA financial intervention during 2010/11 but AGREED :

1. To consider the proposals in conjunction with the review of the economic functions; and

2. That more detailed scrutiny be given to the Manchester Conference Partnership

Page 77 2.

111/10 GM METROPOLITAN DEBT ADMINISTRATION FUND

The Executive Board considered a report which presented the Fund’s estimated rates of interest for 2010/11 and 2011/12 together with the borrowing strategy to be employed.

The Board requested a report at its next meeting which will explore the potential for rescheduling the outstanding debt which was £189m at 1 st January 2010.

112/10 GM WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY BUDGET 2011-2012

The Executive Board considered a GM Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) Joint Officers’ report on the GMWDA’S budget for 2011/12 and beyond.

The Executive Board AGREED: to note the report

113/10 GM FIRE & RESCUE AUTHORITY REVENUE BUDGET 2011-2012

The Executive Board considered an interim report which gave an outline of Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Authority’s current assessment of budget projections for 2011/2012, and the main issues which affect the budget. The report also provided a high level forward forecast for the three subsequent years, with appropriate caveats for information.

The Executive Board AGREED: to note the report

114/10 AUDIT COMMISSION – ANNUAL GOVERNANCE REPORT 2009/10

Paul McKevitt, Wigan Council presented a report for Members consideration, which provided a summary of work carried out during the audit of the 2009/10 accounts, the conclusions reached and the recommendations to discharge the statutory audit responsibilities to those charged with governance.

The Executive Board AGREED: to note the report.

115/10 EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING APRIL 2011

Due to the royal wedding on 29 April, the Board AGREED to hold its meeting on Thursday 28 th April 2011.

Chair

Page 78 ASSOCIATION OF GREATER MANCHESTER AUTHORITIES

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 17 th DECEMBER 2010 AT ROCHDALE TOWN HALL

Present: -

In the Chair Councillor Peter Smith (Wigan)

BOLTON COUNCIL Sean Harriss

BURY COUNCIL Councillor Bob Bibby Mark Sanders

MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese Howard Bernstein Penny Boothman Susan Orrell

OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Howard Sykes Charlie Parker

ROCHDALE MBC Roger Ellis

SALFORD CC Councillor John Merry Barbara Spicer

STOCKPORT MBC Councillor David Goddard Eamonn Boylan

TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Kieran Quinn Steven Pleasant

TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge Janet Callender

WIGAN COUNCIL Joyce Redfearn

GMITA Councillor Keith Whitmore

GMPTE David Leather

GMWDA Councillor Michael Young

GMFRS Councillor Paul Shannon Councillor John Bell

COMMISSION FOR NEW Mike Emmerich ECONOMY

AGMA SCRUTINY Councillor Simon Ashley Amanda Carbery

AGMA Page Joanne 79 Horrocks Karen Tierney Kerry Bond

116/10 APOLOGIES

Councillors Cliff Morris, Wesley Fitzgerald and Ian Marks, Ian McDonald, Neil Swannick. Peter Fahy and Diana Terris.

117/10 MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE BOARD 26 NOVEMBER 2010

It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.

118/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None

119/10 FORWARD PLAN

The Executive Board AGREED to note the report.

120/10 GREATER MANCHESTER AND LEP SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS

Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester CC presented the report detailing the indicative timetable of actions to be taken by CLG and DFT and the steps to be taken by AGMA and GMITA to put the Combined Authority and TfGMC into place which have been drawn up and were agreed by the Executive Board in November.

The Board AGREED:

1. to support the proposed arrangements and that they be regarded as transitional at this stage, to be reviewed after they have been in operation for 6 months.

121/10 UPDATE ON THE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP

The Executive Board received a report from Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester CC, providing the Executive Board with an update on progress in establishing the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership and seeking approval for the planned recruitment process. Discussion took place and a number of the points were raised, being- Discussion needs to take place within the next few weeks between members of this Board on the permanent representation to LEP from April. A rigorous selection process is expected. It was agreed at Regional Leaders Board that the national model of RDF funding, managed by CSG, have a North West/Regional focus on the programme running until 2013. Chief Executives have agreed a single priority protection position until 2013. Paper to last Regional Leaders Board gives further details on the Regional Leaders Board on progress in the development of a Transition Plan designed to secure the orderly and effective transition to new regional arrangements Page 80 The Board AGREED:

1. to note progress on establishing the GM LEP;

2. to endorse the proposed approach in making the non-local authority appointments to the LEP;

3. that the report to the last meeting of the Regional Leaders Board be circulated to Executive Board members.

122/10 GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY UPDATE

Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester CC presented the report updating members on the activities set out in the timetable, focusing in particular on the ongoing discussions with CLG and DfT.

Discussion took place and the Board AGREED to note:

1. the actions being taken by officers to progress discussions with CLG and DfT on the detailed drafting of the Order establishing the Combined Authority, and that details of these arrangements be circulated to members at the end of January for approval February/early March.;

2. that the constitutional documentation for the Combined Authority and TfGMC will be submitted for approval to the next meeting prior to formal consideration by the districts.

123/10 GM 14-19 SUB REGIONAL GROUP

The Executive Board considered the minutes of the 14-19 Sub-Regional Group meeting held on 16 th November 2010: but raised no issues.

124/10 HEALTH COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME

In accordance with the AGMA Constitution the Health Commission Work Programme was submitted for approval by the Board.

The Board AGREED:

1. to approve the content of the work programme;

2. that no elements in the work programme be waived from potential referral back to the Executive Board;

3. to receive a revised work programme in twelve months.

125/10 PLANNING & HOUSING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME

In accordance with the AGMA Constitution the Planning & Housing Commission Work Programme was submitted for approval by the Board.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. to approve the content of the work programme; Page 81 2. that no elements in the work programme be waived from potential referral back to the Executive Board;

3. to receive a revised work programme in twelve months.

126/10 ATLANTIC GATEWAY UPDATE

Barbara Spicer, Salford CC presented the report updating members on progress and ongoing constructive discussions about the project and its role. The report reflects the progress made to date and was presented to the Regional Leaders meeting on Friday 10th December.

The Executive Board AGREED to note the report.

127/10 MINUTES OF SCRUTINY POOL HELD ON 10 DECEMBER 2010

The Executive Board considered draft minutes of the AGMA Scrutiny Pool meeting held on 10 th December 2010: but raised no issues.

128/10 AGMA UNITS BUDGETS – OUTCOME OF SCRUTINY PROCESS

Report of the AGMA Scrutiny Pool was submitted to inform the Board of their findings and recommendations in relation to the AGMA Units Budgets for 2011/12 as agreed at the Executive Board on 25 June 2010.

It was agreed at the meeting of the Pool on 12 November 2010 to invite the following AGMA Units to present their budgets:-

Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Greater Manchester Geology Unit Greater Manchester County Records Unit Greater Manchester Trading Standards Unit Greater Manchester Policy and Research Unit

The Scrutiny Pool feel that a 10% cut is sustainable with the exception of the County Record Office who showed that they are unable to meet the 10% cut because the GM residuary body has advised the Office that they are not able to meet the 2010/11 contribution of £27,976, further investigations by the Business Management Group are required to clarify this.

The Executive Board AGREED:

1. that Business Management Group investigate whether the Greater Manchester Residuary Fund Body will be making a contribution to the Greater Manchester County Records Office in 2011/12 and report back to the next meeting of the Scrutiny Pool/GIF panel.

2. that the units be asked to :- (a) look at the synergies, potential for mergers, relationships with each other/other bodies and income generation opportunities for the future.

Page 82 (b) produce a 3 year business plan which identifies future savings and income generating activities and report this to the June 2011 meeting of the Scrutiny Pool/GIF Panel.

3. that Business Management Group be requested to examine (a) the need for a contingency fund within the Trading Standards Unit (b) the extent to which budgets need to be redesigned given the fact that 40% of the Policy Unit budget is not controlled by the Unit head. (c) the possibility of protecting volunteer travel expenses within the County Records Office budget.

115/10 SPECIAL EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING 12 th JANUARY 2011

The Board were reminded that a special meeting of the Executive Board has been arranged Wednesday 12 th January 2011 at Manchester Town Hall.

Chair

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84 5 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER INTEGRATED TRANSPORT AUTHORITY HELD ON 15 OCTOBER 2010

PRESENT: Councillor Ian Macdonald (In the Chair)

Councillors Shan Alexander, Mark Aldred, Malcolm Bruce, Stuart Corris, Mary D’Albert, Doreen Dickinson, John Dillon, Ian Duckworth, Andrew Fender, Alan Godson, Roland Griffin, Lynne Holland, David Jones, Roger Jones, Richard Knowles, June Reilly, Brian Rigby, Peter Robinson, David Sandiford, Eunice Smethurst, Barry Theckston, Roy Walters, Barry Warner, Alan Whitehead, Keith Whitmore, Christine Wild, David Wilkinson and Craig Wright

APOLOGIES: Councillors David Chadwick, Philip Harding, Eddie McCulley and Michael Winstanley

ITA/10/32 CHAIR’S ANNOUCEMENTS

A review of meeting room accommodation to be undertaken to ensure appropriate rooms were allocated for political group meetings and the Authority meeting itself.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Christine Wild her first meeting of the Authority following her appointment by Bolton MBC to replace councillor Paul Brierley.

The recent retirement of Terry Bowers was announced Members of the Authority wished him well in his retirement and signed a congratulations card.

The Chair congratulated Councillor Richard Knowles on behalf of the Authority on his recent award of the Alan Hay Award in Transport Geography (awarded by the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers).

Greater Manchester has been successfully awarded a £1.59m grant from the Department for Transport’s (DfT) latest Green Bus Fund. GMPTE, on behalf of the Authority has now made two successful bids to the DfT’s Green Bus Fund, which aimed to encourage and assist bus operators and local authorities to purchase new hybrid and electric buses. The grant will assist with the purchase of fifteen hybrid Yellow School Buses and four low-carbon buses, to be used in the MediaCity area. The Manchester Airport Group has also been successful in it’s bid and has been awarded £527,840 to purchase five vehicles.

Metrolink has been recognised at the Light Rail Awards for its service enhancements.

In response to the news that Councillor Eddie McCulley was in hospital, the Authority and asked for their best wishes to be sent to him.

Page1 85 ITA/10/33 URGENT BUSINESS

The Chair agreed to consider the items circulated on the Supplemental Agenda as items of urgent business:

i. The proceedings of the Rail and Metrolink Networks Committee held on 1 October 2010. ii. The proceedings of the Bus Network and PTE Services Committee held on 8 October 2010. iii. Leigh-Salford-Manchester Guided Busway – Additional Information

ITA/10/34 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Stuart Corris declared a non prejudicial interest as a Trustee of the Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Trust (GMATT).

ITA/10/35 MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND IT’S COMMITTEES

The Authority was informed of the resignation of Councillor Paul Brierley as a Member of the GMITA and the consequential appointment of Councillor Christine Wild by Bolton MBC.

The Authority was also requested to consider the appointment of a Conservative Member of the Authority to the consequential Committee vacancies as follows:

Capital Projects Committee Audit Committee Emergency Committee (Substitute Member) Policy and Resources Committee (Substitute Member)

RESOLVED/-

1. That the resignation of Councillor Paul Brierley as a Member of the Authority and the appointment of Christine Wild by Bolton MBC to fill the vacancy be noted.

2. That the appointment of Councillor Ian Macdonald as a Member of the Capital Projects Committee be approved.

3. That the appointment of Councillor Christine Wild to the Bus Network and PTE Service Committee to replace Councillor Ian Macdonald be approved.

4. That the appointment of Councillor Christine Wild as a Member of the Audit Committee be approved.

5. That the appointment of Councillor Christine Wild as Substitute Member of the Emergency Committee be approved.

6. That the appointment of Councillor Christine Wild as a Substitute Member of the Policy and Resources Committee be approved.

Page2 86 ITA/10/36 MINUTES OF THE AUTHORITY MEETING HELD ON 27 AUGUST 2010

RESOLVED/-

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Authority held on 27 August 2010 be approved as a correct record.

ITA/10/37 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 10 SEPTEMBER 2010

RESOVLED/-

That the Proceedings of the Policy and Resources Committee held on 10 September 2010 be received.

ITA/10/38 CAPITAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE – 17 SEPTEMBER 2010

RESOVLED/-

That the proceedings of the Capital Projects Committee held on 17 September 2010 be received subject to the correction of identified typing errors.

ITA/10/39 AUDIT COMMITTEE – 24 SEPTEMBER 2010

RESOVLED/-

That the proceedings of the Audit Committee held on 24 September 2010 be received, subject to the inclusion of Councillor June Reilly in the list of apologies.

ITA/10/40 RAIL AND METROLINK NETWORKS COMMITTEE – 1 OCTOBER 2010

RESOLVED/-

That the proceedings of the Rail and Metrolink Networks Committee held on 1 October 2010 be received.

ITA/10/41 BUS NETWORK AND PTE SERVICES COMMITTEE – 8 OCTOBER 2010

The Chair of the Bus Network and PTE Services Committee reported that the next meeting of the Committee will be considering routes in the Rochdale area.

RESOLVED/-

That the proceedings of the Bus Network and PTE Services Committee held on 8 October 2010 be received.

Page3 87 ITA/10/42 GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY – NEXT STEPS

A report of the Clerk to the Authority was submitted which considered, in the light of the resolutions approved by the AGMA Executive Board in February and March 2010, what steps will be required to bring the Combined Authority (CA) and the Joint Committee on transport (TfGMC) into being, assuming a positive Government response to the CA proposal.

The Authority was advised that a progress report will be submitted to the December 2010 meeting of the Authority.

RESOLVED/-

1. That the possible timetable for the approval of the Order to establish the CA, which will enable the CA and TfGMC to be established in shadow form in January 2011, and subject to an announcement by Government of their in-principle endorsement of the CA proposal, be noted.

2. That the submission of a detailed report to the AGMA Executive Board in November/December 2010 setting out the possible timetable for the establishment of the CA be noted.

3. That the detailed terms of reference for TfGMC, as contained within Appendix 1 to the report now submitted, be approved, in principle, and approved for incorporated into the operating agreement between the CA and the districts.

4. That the work underway on the development of the operating agreement between the CA and the districts in relation to economic development and regeneration functions be noted.

5. That the work underway on the development of protocols in relation to the four traffic functions be noted.

6. That the proposed approach to the procedure for new traffic installations, including the development of a Traffic Signals Protocol be noted.

7. That, subject to a positive Government announcement, the development by officers of all detailed documentation to the next stage for approval by the AGMA Executive Board and districts, be noted.

ITA/10/43 REFORMING RAIL FRANCHISING CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Consideration was given to a report providing Members with the proposed GMITA response to the ‘Reforming Rail Franchising’ consultation exercise.

Members were concerned about including a statement in the draft response suggesting the length of the Northern franchise of 10 years was appropriate, in the absence of a commitment to purchasing new and additional rolling stock and rail station capacity improvements. It was agreed that the fundamental requirement for

Page4 88 franchisees to commit to delivering real improvements should be more prominent in the response.

Members acknowledged the need to challenge the high levels of subsidy paid to the franchises which serve Greater Manchester, however, it was unclear how the levels of subsidy could be reduced without having a negative impact on the travelling public.

It was suggested that cost savings could be achieved via efficient network operations without additional costs borne by passengers.

Officers acknowledged Members’ comments and agreed that the response to the consultation required a clear upfront statement of objectives.

RESOLVED/-

That the proposed draft response, subject to the incorporation of the comments made above, be approved for submission to Government.

ITA/10/44 LEIGH-SALFORD-MANCHESTER BUSWAY

Consideration was given to a report presenting the outcome of a recent review of the Leigh-Salford-Manchester Busway scheme which formed part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund.

The Chair of the Authority advised that at its last meeting the AGMA Executive Board had reaffirmed their earlier decision to progress the LSM scheme.

RESOLVED/-

That the outcome of the review be noted.

ITA/10/45 DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CONSULTATION: REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CONCESSIONARY BUS TRAVEL SCHEME IN ENGLAND

A report of the Clerk to the Authority was submitted informing the meeting of the recently issued consultation on the proposed changes to reimbursement arrangement for concessionary bus travel in England and seeking delegated authority to prepare and submit a comprehensive response to the consultation by the 11 November 2010 deadline.

Members reminded the meeting that the outcome of the Compulsory Spending Review was still unknown and the consultation provided an opportunity to remind Government how important local bus services were to the community in providing access to work and leisure facilities.

Any changes to levels of Government subsidy could potentially result in bus operators increasing bus fares and rationalising services. Such actions would result in some communities being left without any bus services and reductions in available

Page5 89 resources to the Authority will mean that those service gaps cannot be bridged, leaving communities isolated.

MOTION MADE/-

This GMITA acknowledges that annual bus subsidy has increased in recent years to £2.9 billion in 2009, made up as follows:

Table 1 : Sources of Bus Service Support GB London 2008/09

Source of funding Amount (2008/09) % increase from 2007/08 In real terms

Concessionary Fare £1,193m Up 12% Reimbursement

Public Transport Support* £1,176m Up 3%

Bus Service Operators’ £504m Up 4% Grant (BSOG)

Total £2,873 Up 7%

*Source: Public Transport Statistics Bulletin GB 2009 supplementary edition, DfT *Includes funding for London, Rural bus subsidy grant, challenge and Kickstart funding which are already devolved to Local Transport Authorities

We recognise that the present Coalition Government are expected to make budget cuts. We urge the Government to:

1. Ensure that local transport authorities receive sufficient grant funding to purchase the additional services which will be required to fill the gaps in socially necessary services created by cuts in the present budges; and

2. Recognise that the capacity and budget of community transport. organisations and ring and ride services (which are targeted at disabled and elderly residents) will need to be increased to enable the most efficient means of securing some of the services to fill these gaps.

The Motion having been put the Authority voted on it. The Chair declared that the MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED/-

The Chair reminded the meeting that Motions should be circulated to all Members in advance of the meeting.

The Chair acknowledged that the level of bus services have reduced over a number of years, however it was difficult to quantify the potential impact on current levels until the outcome of the Compulsory Spending Review has been announced.

Page6 90 The Authority was also reminded of the implications to be considered as a consequence of the changes in management responsibilities for concessionary bus passes from a district level to a county level, in addition to changes to the eligibility age criteria from 60 to 65 for the concessionary bus pass.

RESOLVED/-

1. That the report be noted.

2. That the response to the Government consultation reflects:

i. That the Authority acknowledges that annual bus subsidy has increased in recent years to £2.9 billion in 2009, made up as follows:

Table 1 : Sources of Bus Service Support GB London 2008/09

Source of Amount (2008/09) % increase from 2007/08 funding In real terms

Concessionary £1,193m Up 12% Fare Reimbursement

Public £1,176m Up 3% Transport Support*

Bus Service £504m Up 4% Operators’ Grant (BSOG)

Total £2,873 Up 7%

ii. That the Authority recognises that the present Coalition Government are expected to make budget cuts. We urge the Government to:

Ensure that local transport authorities receive sufficient grant funding to purchase the additional services which will be required to fill the gaps in socially necessary services created by cuts in the present budges; and

Page7 91 Recognise that the capacity and budget of community transport. organisations and ring and ride services (which are targeted at disabled and elderly residents) will need to be increased to enable the most efficient means of securing some of the services to fill these gaps.

3. That authority be delegated to the Clerk to the Authority and Chief Executive, GMPTE, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Authority and the Leader of the Opposition to approve the response to the Government’s consultation.

ITA/10/46 GREATER MANCHESTER ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT TRUST (GMATT)

RESOLVED/-

1. That appointment of Councillor Malcolm Bruce to replace Councillor Peter Evans as a GMATT Trustee be approved.

2. That the appointment of Penny Boothman, Deputy Clerk, to replace Stephen Clark, as a GMATT Trustee be approved.

ITA/10/47 CONFERENCE

The Authority was requested to consider whether it was appropriate to send delegates to the UK Rail 2010 Conference on 7 December 2010 in London at a cost of £249 + VAT per delegate.

RESOLVED/-

That no delegates be appointed to represent the Authority at the above conference.

ITA/10/48 INVITATION TO THE VICE CHAIR OF THE AUTHORITY

The Authority was requested to consider meeting the costs of overnight accommodation and transport for the Vice Chair of the Authority to attend and speak at the National Railway Museum Annual Dinner to be held on 21 October 2010 in York.

RESOLVED/-

That the cost of reasonable accommodation and standard class rail fare to enable the Vice Chair of the Authority to attend and speak at the National Railway Museum Annual Dinner to be held on 21 October 2010 in York be approved.

Page8 92 ITA/10/49 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOVLED/-

That, under section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that this involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as set out in paragraph 3, Part 1, Schedule12A, Local Government Act 1972.

ITA/10/50 PROPERTY DISPOSALS

Consideration was given to a report seeking approval to the disposal of land adjacent to Prestwich Cricket Club and land at Exchange Quay and the granting of a licence at Hagside Crossing, Radcliffe.

RESOLVED/-

That the property disposals, as outlined within the report now submitted, be approved.

Page9 93 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 94 Performance, Services and CapacityPublic Document Pack

UNITY PARTNERSHIP BOARD

24 November 2010

Crompton Suite, Civic Centre, Oldham, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1NL 4.00 pm

Present: Councillor Shoab Akhtar Emma Alexander Roger Barrett Carol Brown Ian Claydon-Butler Steven Garratt (Secretary) Daniel Howard Councillor Mohammed Masud (Chair) Angela McIntyre (Secretary) Councillor Jim McMahon Steve Morriss Nigel Muirhead Charlie Parker Councillor Len Quinn Councillor Howard Sykes Councillor Lynne Thompson

1 Welcome and Apologies Apologies were received from John Howard and Maura Brooks. 2 Minutes and Matters Arising The minutes were agreed as a correct record with the correction that Councillor Thompson had sent her apologies to the previous meeting. 3 Managing Director's Report and KPI Report (Standing Item) Roger Barratt presented the update.

Highlights included: • Meetings with the Property section which had discussed service improvement initiatives. • Project management of new accommodation at Buckstones School. • Nominated for 2 TOP awards for Employee and Manager of the Year. • Successful assessment in reaching the ISO20000 standard in ICT. • The benefits team were a finalist in the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation performance awards for most improved team. • Internal restructuring was beingPage undertaken. 95 Performance, Services and Capacity

• Two day “Working Differently” event held as part of Trust Oldham Programme. • Transfer of Phase 2 services.

Members raised issues regarding: • Communication to Elected Members

Action: To issue a briefing paper to Members detailing progress, issues and timescales. SM

4 Update on Phase 2 (Standing Item) Ian Claydon-Butler updated the Board on the progress of the Phase 2 Programme, giving details of proposed areas for transfer, which included Transactional Finance, Transactional HR, Highways and Customer Contact.

Both partners are carrying out due diligence with final commercial information to be agreed by the end of the year.

Members queried further developments with the progress to Phase 3 and 4. It was envisaged that a strategic session would be arranged for the March meeting of the Board.

Action: The update was noted. 5 Update on Highways (Standing Item) Carol Brown presented an update on improvements made to customer service and preparation for Highways staff transfer under Unity Phase 2 proposals.

The Board was informed that detailed service reviews have been completed and quick wins have been implemented. Outstanding issues continued to be monitored and reviewed in order to ensure the transfer would be smooth.

Queries were raised regarding grit bins given the recent bad weather. The Board heard that there were criteria for the placement of grit bins although this could be referred to District Partnerships for their input.

Action: The update was noted.

6 Unity Governance Daniel Howard updated the Partnership Board on the review of contractual governance arrangements and detailed the options available.

The Board considered the three options presented which were as follows:-

Option 1. to maintain the currentPage the state 96 of affairs; Performance, Services and Capacity

Option 2. to reaffirm the current contractual arrangements and ask each party to commit to their contractual commitments to each other and observe the terms of the SSPA; Option 3. to disestablish the existing governance arrangements and create a single tiered contract governance structure with the strategic element passing to the Joint Venture Company Board.

The Board discussed the role of the proposed Strategic Management Board and the required attendance from senior officers.

The Board agreed that - 1. the preferred option of Option 3 be approved subject to the name of the proposed Strategic Management Board remaining the Operations Board; 2. the attendance of senior officers at the Operations Board be determined by the items listed for consideration. 7 AOB Councillor Akhtar asked for information regarding the merger between Unity and Impact (Rochdale). The Board was informed that this referred to the sustainability review of the Unity Partnership and the merger of the two companies would deliver cost savings. 8 Date and Time of Next Meeting The date of the next meeting would be notified to all Board Members when confirmed.

The meeting started at 4.00 pm and ended at 5.10 pm

Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

HELD ON 9th DECEMBER 2010

Present:

Councillor Paul Shannon (Chairman), Councillor John Bell (Vice-Chair), Councillors Jack Walton (Deputy Chairman), David Acton, Paul Ankers, Mohammed Ayub, Eric Burgoyne, Dylan Butt, Linda Byrne, Henry Cooper, Basil Curley, Jim Dawson, James Grundy, Jackie Harris, Derek Heffernan, Barrie Holland, Phillip Holley, Bernard Judge, Iain Lindley, Naim Mahmud, Wendy Meikle, Ann Metcalfe, John O'Brien, Colin Shaw, Fred Walker, David Wilson and Patricia Young

Also in Attendance: Steve McGuirk (County Fire Officer & Chief Executive), Jim Owen (Deputy County Fire Officer), David Smith (Treasurer, Wigan MBC), Anita Wainwright (Director of People and Organisation Development), Ged Murphy (Director of Finance and Technical Services), Gwynne Williams (Deputy Clerk and Authority Solicitor) and Donna Parker (Democratic Services Manager)

61. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tommy Judge, Pamela King and Michael Smith.

62. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 11 th November 2010 were approved and signed as a correct record.

63. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest received.

64. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

Resolved: That the public be excluded from the meeting when the following items are considered for the reasons set out below:

Agenda Title Minute Description of Exempt Information Item No. No. by reference to the paragraph number(s) in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

E.1 Emerging Outcomes from 76. 1 (Information relating to any Departmental Restructuring individual); Review 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of

Page 99

any person or organisation including the Authority); 4 (Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations between the Authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the Authority).

E.2 Emergency Response 77. 3 (Information relating to the Options/Rostering Patterns financial or business affairs of any person or organisation including the Authority); 4 (Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations between the Authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the Authority).

E.3 Summary of HR Transition 78. 3 (Information relating to the Policies financial or business affairs of any person or organisation including the Authority); 5 (Information in respect of which a claim for legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings).

65. URGENT BUSINESS (IF ANY)

There were no items of urgent business submitted by the Chairman.

66. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. The Chairman reminded Members that the Authority Christmas Lunch would be taking place at the rise of this Meeting.

2. The Chairman informed Members that Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service had held the CharterMark Standard since 2000; The Government made a decision to cease this in 2008 and replace it with a new award the Customer Service Excellence Standard. Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service had been successful in its

Page 100

compliance assessment against the new Customer Service Excellence Standard, and have demonstrated compliance in all elements of the Standard and attained a class ification of ‘Compliance Plus’ in the following 3 areas:-

- As a driver of continuous improvement; - As a skills development tool; - As an independent validation of achievement.

3. The Chairman advised Members that Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Authority had been presented with the North West Charter on Elected Member Development Level 1 Award at the North West Employers Celebration Event on 26 th November 2010.

4. The Chairman informed Members that Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service had won the silver CIPR Pride award for the best web site in the Northwest. The website was re-designed and developed in- house with the aim of getting information to Greater Manchester more quickly and easily.

5. The Chairman informed Members that Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service had won an Award for ‘Influencing Behaviour Change and Promoting Sustainable Behaviours’ at the ‘North West Climate Leaders Award 2010 on 2 nd November 2010.

6. Future Princes Trust dates are as follows:-

- Salford – 9 December at 7.15pm at MUFC - Bolton – 15 December at 7.15pm at Bolton Town Hall

7. The Chairman reminded Members that the next ‘Senior Member Consultation Meeting’ would be taking place on Saturday 8 th January 2011 commencing at 9.30am.

8. The Chairman informed Members of the Outcomes from the Meeting with MP’s that was held in London on 30 th November 2010. The meeting was arranged to discuss various issues affecting Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service, in particular Potential Strike Action, Budget Cuts and the Integrated Risk Management Plan.

9. The Chairman informed Members that two candidates had been shortlisted for the posts of Director of Prevention and Protection and Director of Emergency Response and the Policy Standing Sub- Committee would be conducting the final interviews on 16 th December 2010.

67. QUESTION (IF ANY) UNDER STANDING ORDER 7

There were no Questions submitted.

Page 101

68. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 4TH NOVEMBER, 2010 OF HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE

The Minutes of the proceedings of the Human Resources Committee held on 4th November 2010 were submitted (Appendix 1).

Resolved: That the proceedings of the Human Resources Committee held on 4th November 2010, be approved.

69. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 OF POLICY COMMITTEE

The Minutes of the proceedings of the Policy Committee held on 25 th November 2010 were submitted (Appendix 2).

Resolved: That the proceedings of the Policy Committee held on 25 th November 2010, be approved.

70. MINUTES OF MEETING FRIDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 OF STANDARDS COMMITTEE

The Minutes of the proceedings of the Standards Committee held on 26 th November 2010 were submitted (Appendix 3).

Resolved: That the proceedings of the Standards Committee held on 26 th November 2010, be approved.

71. MINUTES OF MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER 2010 OF AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Minutes of the proceedings of the Audit Committee held on 1 st December 2010 were submitted (Appendix 4).

Resolved: That the proceedings of the Audit Committee held on 1 st December 2010, be approved.

72. 2ND QUARTER PERFORMANCE REPORTING 1ST JULY 2010 - 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which presented the 2 nd Quarter performance reporting from 1 st July to 30 th September 2010. The report set out the current status and progress made against the Corporate Plan and key performance indicators at the end of the second quarter for 2010/11.

Members were advised that generally the performance against the key performance indicators continued to move in a positive direction. However, the following remained a particular focus for this quarter:-

Page 102

- Incident Activity; - Fatalities and Injuries; - Fires Confined to Room of Origin; - Absence (Uniformed and Non-Uniformed Staff).

Members had an in-depth discussion on the Absence statistics with regard to the increase in sickness absence for both the Uniformed and Non-Uniformed Staff within the organisation and how this could be improved over the remaining two quarters of the year. In response, the Director of People and Organisation Development, reported that a number of measures had been identified where possible improvements to absence management could be made, these included:-

- Cross Watch / Management access to personnel absence records; - Completion and quality of return to work records; - Recognition and challenge of possible sickness patterns; - Where appropriate, greater use of modified duties for long term absence.

The Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, Councillor Iain Lindley, reported that ‘Absence Management across the Service’ was an area which the Human Resources Committee would be investigating at its next meeting in January 2011.

Resolved: That:

1. The contents of the 2 nd Quarterly reporting for 1 st July to 30 th September 2010 against the Corporate Plan 2010/11, be noted.

2. The 2 nd Quarter performance against the indicators in the performance framework for 1 st July to 30 th September 2010, be noted.

3. A report on ‘Absence Management within the Service’ be submitted to the next meeting of the Human Resources Committee on 20 th January 2011, as requested by the Authority at its meeting on 9th September 2010.

73. GREATER MANCHESTER STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT REVIEW 2010

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which provided an overview of the recently published Greater Manchester Strategic Assessment Review and the rationale for its content.

Members were advised that the review document was intended to provide partners with a comprehensive update of activity against the 50 recommendations contained with the 2009 Greater Manchester Strategic Assessment, in addition to ongoing work programmes which fall outside the work plans of the theme groups.

Page 103

It was reported that the proposal which Greater Manchester against Crime (GMAC) presented to the AGMA Wider Leadership Group in a bid to demonstrate greater efficiency, provided a pro rata reduction of 16% for all agencies, averaged over three years. This would result in a financial commitment for Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service of £168,840 divided into three equal annual payments of £56,280 giving a saving of £32,160.

Resolved: That:

1. The content of the report and the progress made in addressing the recommendations of the Greater Manchester 2009 Strategic Assessment, including the progress made to implement the structures that sit under the Public Protection Commission, be noted.

2. The requirement for a continued financial resource to Greater Manchester against Crime (GMAC), albeit reduced by 16% during 2011/14, be noted.

74. ELECTED MEMBER VISIT TO THE FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE - 22/23 NOVEMBER 2010 - FEEDBACK

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which provided feedback from the Elected Member Visit to the Fire Service College which took place on 22 nd and 23 rd November 2010 that five Members attended.

The Fire Service College arranged the visit on a complementary basis which included both accommodation and subsistence.

The visit allowed both new and existing Members to view the facilities at the College meet a number of staff that work at the College including secondees from other Fire and Rescue Services and to meet the Chief Executive of the College to discuss the challenges facing the college in future years.

Members took the opportunity to provide feedback of their own experiences of the visit to the meeting.

Resolved: That the content of the report and comments raised be noted.

75. BUDGET STRATEGY

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive in consultation with the Treasurer which advised Members of the latest position in relation to the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) announcement and its impact on the Medium Term Financial Strategy for the Authority.

Members were advised that the Revenue Support Grant Settlement (RSG) was originally scheduled for publication on 2 nd December 2010, however this had now been delayed and the proposed publication date was to be advised.

Page 104

However, there still remained a requirement to set the Authority’s budget in February 2011, therefore plans to do so would continue, and this must be a balanced budget.

It was reported that the scale of funding reductions was likely to be beyond any of the previous financial challenges the Authority had faced, with reductions of approximately £15M being required over the next four years. The final figure would be dependent on how the key issues were dealt with by the Government.

Members were advised that a number of reviews were in the process of taking place and these would form the basis of a series of detailed options to deliver a balanced and sustainable budget, whilst meeting the statutory duties of the Authority. In addition, these reviews would form the basis of a large scale change programme that would result in fundamental changes in how service support was organised and delivered, and how operational resources were matched more closely to the new risk model.

In conclusion, it was reported that the final Budget Strategy would be submitted to the Joint Policy and Finance and General Purposes Committee on 27 th January 2011 for consideration and the precept would be agreed at the next meeting of the Authority on 10 th February 2011.

Resolved: That the content of the report and comments raised, be noted.

76. EMERGING OUTCOMES FROM DEPARTMENTAL RESTRUCTURING REVIEWS

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which detailed the preparations which were being made to address the financial situation facing the Authority and summarised the emerging outcomes of a number of specific reviews.

Members were advised that this report was intended to inform consideration of Items E.2 – ‘Emergency Response Options/Rostering Patterns’ and E.3 – Summary of HR Transition Policies’ on the agenda detailing how to implement change and manage transition. The detailed reviews and associated Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) would be considered at a future meeting of the Authority.

Resolved: That:

1. The extensive level of preparatory work undertaken in support of the development of the Medium Term Financial Strategy, be noted

2. The broad conclusions and findings from the major reviews undertaken to support the Financial Strategy, be noted.

Page 105

77. EMERGENCY RESPONSE OPTIONS/ROSTERING PATTERNS

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which detailed the proposed change to rostering arrangements for personnel on fire stations. The two main areas for consideration included the allocation of resources and the duty systems / roster patterns used to support their provision. Members were requested to support the outlined proposals in order for more detailed early discussions to take place with staff and their representatives.

Resolved: That:

1. The outline rostering proposals, based upon risk, be noted and be supported for initiating staff consultation and negotiations.

2. The proposed reduction from five watches to four on whole time stations, and the subsequent reduction in establishment posts, be noted.

3. The proposal to introduce Day Crewing Plus systems to build on existing Day Crewing stations, be noted.

4. The introduction of the Hub and Flex station principles, plus the continuing use of the Nucleus & Retained station duty system be supported.

78. SUMMARY OF HR TRANSITION POLICIES

Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which set out the current policy framework available to manage the required reductions in staffing levels, in light of the recently announced Comprehensive Spending Review.

Resolved: That:

1. The proposed approach to deliver the outline efficiency programme, be approved.

2. Delegated authority be given to the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive in consultation with the Treasurer to apply the Authority’s policies, as detailed in the report.

3. The current Policy Framework be kept under review so as to ensure that the statutory tests of ‘public confidence’ and ‘affordability’ continued to be satisfied.

CHAIRMAN

Page 106 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 13 CABINET 08/12/2010 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Alcock, Blyth, J Hulme, Knox, Lord, Masud, McCann, Stanton, Sykes and Thompson

Also Present: Emma - Executive Director, Performance, Alexander Services & Capacity Paul Entwistle - Borough Solicitor Veronica - Executive Director People, Jackson Communities and Society Elaine McLean - Executive Director Economy, Place and Skills Charlie Parker - Chief Executive Carolyn Wilkins - Assistant Chief Executive In Attendance: Liz Frier - Head of Constitutional Services

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest received. 3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Cabinet received and considered four public questions submitted by Ken Hulme:

Question 1

' In response to a question I asked to Cabinet on 9th February 2010 Cllr Mark Alcock informed me that the double yellow lines 'The council's lining contractor was required to remove ...... because they were put down in error...... that... subject to there being no objections, the Traffic Regulation Order should be introduced in the next four weeks and the double yellow lines will be re-laid.

10 months later and these double yellow lines have still not been re-laid. Does Oldham Council have any intention of finishing this work ? If so when ?'

Question 2

' How much has the Delph School Safety Zone cost the council (and local taxpayers) to date ? How does this compare with the cost of establishing school safety zones elsewhere in this borough and in neighbouring boroughs like Rochdale ?'

Page 107 Question 3

' What actions does OMBC take to ensure the Unity Partnership delivers value for money when it undertakes work for the council like Delph School Safety Zone ? Does it put work like this out to competitive tendering ?

Question 4

'On November 23rd traffic in Delph was severely disrupted when contractors descended unannounced on the village and proceeded to resurface at least 100 yards of highway on Denshaw Road. Prior to this resurfacing taking place United Utilities had written to local residents inviting them to a presentation in Delph School on November 29th to outline extensive sewage works in Delph and on the Denshaw Road in particular which it was proposed to undertake next spring

The section of Denshaw Road which will be dug up to facilitate stages 1 and 2 of United Utilities sewage works next spring is exactly the same piece of road resurfaced on November 23rd.

Was any attempt to liaise with or co-ordinate with the major utilities made before this resurfacing of Denshaw Road was undertaken ? Was any cost incurred by Oldham Council (and local taxpayers) for this resurfacing work ? Will any lessons be learnt ?

Councillor John McCann responded with the following answers:

4 MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 8 th December 2010 be approved. 5 URGENT BUSINESS There were no items of urgent business received. 6 FREE AND PARENT RUN SCHOOLS Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, People, Communities and Society which outlined the government policy in relation to free and parent run schools and some of the implications for Oldham.

Members were advised that the Secretary of State for Education had published proposals to free schools form the Local Authority control by allowing schools to be set up on paternal demand. Free schools would be independant state schools run by teachers accountable to parents,. The aim was to introduce innovation, diversity of provision and increase parental choice in the market. Options/Alternatives Page 108 A considerable amount of time and effort had been spent on developing an integrated system of education in the Borough where improvement needs are tackled and overall planning took place. A whole system approach could be at risk through the development of free schools in Oldham. Members were advised that a cross- party agreement had been reached about the proposals.

RESOLVED: That Cabinet did not support the development of free schools at this stage for the following reasons:

1. There was the potential for significant number of surplus places to be created

2. There was the impact on the current 11-16 and Sixth Form provision as well as Community Cohesion

3. Any proposals would have the potential to make one of the new academies unviable

4. The local authority’s coherent whole system approach to raising school standards and school planning, recently endorsed by the Secretary of State could be compromised

5. Education standards continued to rise and the attainment gap had narrowed reducing the demand for a Free School

7 COUNCIL TAX BASE 2011/12 Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which presented to Cabinet the Council Tax Base for 2011/12 for use in budget deliberations, based on the most up to date valuation list and other information and estimates available. Members were advised that the total number of band D properties for 2011/12 was £64,456.8 which at a recommended collection rate of 97.75% was equivilant to a tax base of 63,006 and increase of 237 over 2010/11. The Council Tax Base for Saddleworth and Shaw and Crompton Parish Councils were 9,887 and 6,494 respectively. The Cabinet Member for Performance and Value for Public Money advised Members that the report was important regarding the progress of housing within the Borough with an increase overall of 70 properties and 44 empty properties brought back into use. RESOLVED: 1. That the Council Tax Tax-Base at 63,006 for Oldham be approved. 2. That the tax base for Saddleworth and Shaw and Crompton Parish Councils were 9,887 and 6,494 respectively be noted.

Page 109

8 AUTHORISATION OF THE NORTH WEST ILLEGAL MONEY LENDING TEAM TO OPERATE IN OLDHAM Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Places and Skills which sought approval to authorise officers of the Illegal Money Lending Team from Birmingham City Council to investigate and institute proceedings against illegal money lenders operating within Oldham. Members were advised that at present, all 22 of the other Authorities in the North-West region were participants in the scheme and the Illegal Money Lending Team was therefore operating elsewhere throughout the region. Oldham would only be able to participate in the scheme with the approval of Cabinet as it involved making arrangements for the discharge of one of our executive functions by another Authority which decision can only be made by Cabinet.

Option/Alternatives The available options were to agree the proposal which would allow the North West Illegal Money Lending Team to operate within Oldham’s Authority area. This would provide an additional level of public protection for residents within the Borough.

Alternatively, the proposal could be rejected which would leave matters unchanged and Oldham would continue to be the only Authority within the North West that did not participate in the scheme leaving Oldham residents in a potentially disadvantaged position.

RESOLVED: That 1. Birmingham City Council be authorised to investigate and institute proceedings against illegal money lenders operating in Oldham 2. A protocol be entered into with Birmingham City Council in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Local Authorities (Arrangement for the Discharge of Functions) Regulations 2000 made under section 19 of the Local Government Act 2000 delegating concurrent powers and duties in respect of the enforcement of Part III of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with Oldham Council, subject to the terms and conditions contained within the agreement; 3. The Borough Solicitor, in consultation with the Executive Director- Economy, Place and Skills be delegated to determine the terms of any such protocol; to enter into it on behalf of Oldham Council and to terminate the agreement. 9 HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER - TRANSFER AGREEMENT Cabinet received a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Places and Skills which provided detail of the Housing Stock Transfer –Transfer Agreement. The positive benefits of the transfer had been fully set out in a number of reports to the Council prior to progressing to ballot. The first of these Page 110 was approved by full Council in December 2008 which agreed the recommendations of the Housing Options Panel that the way forward to secure the levels of investment – the Oldham Standard – was through housing stock transfer and that the new landlord body should be created by transforming First Choice Homes Oldham (FCHO) (the ALMO) into a registered provider of social housing.

Subsequent to that the Cabinet approved the formal consultation material which was distributed to all secure and introductory tenants and in due course the Cabinet considered the responses received through this consultation exercise. That meeting also approved that the ballot of tenants should be undertaken.

Following the positive tenants’ ballot outcome in April this year, the Council started the legal process of negotiating the transfer of its housing stock to FCHO, which would convert to a new ‘not-for-profit’ registered provider of social housing before the transfer. 1. RESOLVED: That Council be recommended to approve the following: 2. Council authority to proceed to completion subject to obtaining consent from the Minister be approved. 3. In accordance with the powers delegated to him in the Council’s Constitution, the Borough Solicitor confirm to the funders that the Council has the authority to enter into the Transfer Agreement by signing a legal opinion to that effect. 4. Authority be delegated to the Executive Director Economy Place and Skills, in consultation with Borough Solicitor, the Borough Treasurer and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Environment, to resolve any matters outstanding. 5. The Borough Solicitor be authorised to sign and seal the Collateral Funders Warranty, Transfer Agreement, Development Agreement, TR5 and any other deeds that need sealing and to sign any ancillary documentation on behalf of the Council.

10 THE NORTH WEST EVERGREEN FUND Cabinet received a report of the Chief Executive which sought approval to the establishment of the North West Evergreen Fund as the urban development fund for the Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria sub-regions for the purposes of the European Commission’s JESSICA initiative. Members were advised that JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) was a European funding mechanism to promote investment in urban development project. A north West JESSICA Holding fund was established by the Northwest Development Agency in December 2009 utilising £50 million of ERDF resources from the North West Operational programme. The Northwest Urban Investment Fund would oversee the investment of European and matched resources in projects in the region via tow urban development funds, one established for Merseyside and the other for the rest of the North West.

Page 111 The Northwest Evergreen fund would be established as a Limited Partnership with the local authorities each becoming limited Partners. Once established it was anticipated that the fund would make its first investments into projects in the first three months of 2011, thereafter it would actively pursue further opportunities to invest. The fund would also explore options to attract investment to the fund. RESOLVED: That 1. The proposal to establish the fund to act as the area’s Urban Development Fund in accordance with its Investment Strategy be approved. 2. Oldham Council becoming a Limited Partner in the North West Evergreen Fund Limited Partnership be approved. The Chief Executive be authorised in consultation with the Leader to nominate from time to time a person to act as the Council’s partner representative at the annual partnership meeting; Oldham Council becoming a shareholder in the General Partner and where appropriate becoming a member of any related limited partnership, limited liability partnership or other partnership or any other investment body related or connected to the Fund be approved. 3. Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, Borough Treasurer and Borough Solicitor in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Value for Public Money to take future decisions on the investment of the Council’s available resources for this programme of work up to the £2.5m as specified in paragraph 11.2 of the report. Oldham Council’s annual contribution towards the operating costs of the fund be approved. 4. The Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer be authorised to negotiate and approve the final terms of the agreements necessary to implement the proposals and the Borough Solicitor be authorised to arrange for the execution of the final agreements on behalf of Oldham Council.

Page 112

The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 6.22 pm

Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 CABINET 22/12/2010 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Alcock, Blyth, J Hulme, Knox, Masud, Stanton, Sykes and Thompson

Also Present: Paul Entwistle - Borough Solicitor Veronica - Executive Director People, Jackson Communities and Society Steven Mair - Borough Treasurer Elaine McLean - Executive Director Economy, Place and Skills Carolyn Wilkins - Assistant Chief Executive In Attendance: Christine - Constitutional Services Chester

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor McCann 2 URGENT BUSINESS The Chair agreed to consider an Item of business – Fitton Hill Neighbourhood Centre – Joint Report of Executive Directors of Economy Place and Skills and People Communities and Society, as a matter of urgency in accordance with S.100 B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972; in order that the contract may be let and the available grant funding secured and spent by March 2011.

Cabinet AGREED to exempt this report from call in due to the urgent need to waive the contract procurement rules to enable the contract to be let and the available grant funding secured and spent by March 2011.

The matter was considered at Item 14 of the Agenda.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest received. 4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME No Public Questions had been received. 5 MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 8 TH December 2010 be approved. Page 115 6 REVENUE MONITOR 2010/11 MONTH 5 Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which provided an update on the Authority’s 2010/11 budget position forecast to the year end, as at the period ending 31 August 2010.

Options/Alternatives

The available options were not to approve any of the proposed management actions included in the report, not to approve some of the actions included in the report or alternatively approve all the actions included in the report.

RESOLVED: That

1. At the end of Month 5 (31 August 2010) the full year forecast of a £357k overspend, which was anticipated to be fully resolved during the year, be noted.

2. Management actions being undertaken to achieve the balanced budget and advise of alternatives to any unlikely to be achieved, be noted.

3. The following virements be approved: • virement of £1.1million within Adult Services from Residential and Daycare Support to Community Care; • the one year virement of £34k from Corporate Policy to Marketing and Communications; and • the Priority Investment Fund virements attached at Appendix 2 7 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2010-11 Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which advised of the latest position and forecast outturn on the 2010-11 Capital Programme together with the proposed changes to the 2010-11 Capital Programme as outlined in Section 5 of the report.

Options/Alternatives

The options that the Cabinet could consider in relation to the contents of this report were not to approve any of the proposed management actions included in the report, not to approve some of the actions included in the report or alternatively approve all the actions included in the report.

RESOLVED: That 1. The variations to the 2010-11 capital programme detailed in Appendix B advising of budget movements and re-profiling schemes to future years resulting in a Page 116 reduction in expenditure of £0.914m and a reduction in resources of £0.914m in 2010-11, be approved.

2.The variations to the 2010-11 capital programme detailed in Appendix A advising of budget movements and re-profiling schemes to future years resulting in an increase in expenditure of £10.994m and an increase in resources of £10.994m in 2010-11, be noted.

8 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY MID-YEAR REVIEW REPORT 2010/11 Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which advised on the performance of the Treasury Management function of the Council for the first half of 2010/11, and provided a comparison of performance against the 2010/11 Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators. The report also outlined the new CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice, together with a revised Treasury Management Policy Statement.

The Chair congratulated the Officers who had worked on the report.

RESOLVED: That 1. The fully revised second edition of the Treasury Management Code of Practice in the Public Services, be adopted, with particular agreement that;

a) Cabinet would assume responsibility for the implementation and regular monitoring of treasury management policies and practices.

b) Responsibility for the execution and administration of treasury management decisions be delegated to the Borough Treasurer, to act in accordance with the Council’s policy statement and treasury management practices and as a CIPFA member, in accordance with CIPFA’s Standard of Professional Practice on Treasury Management.

c) The Audit Committee be nominated with responsibility for ensuring effective scrutiny of the treasury management strategy and policies.

2. The revised Treasury Management policy statement (included in Appendix 1) be approved. 3. The temporary amendments to the Annual Investment Strategy, outlined in paragraph 2.9.4 be approved. 4. The temporary amendments to the Borrowing Strategy, outlined in paragraph 2.9.5 be approved. 5. The Treasury Management outturn position and activity for the first half of 2010/11 be noted. Page 117 6. The report be approved for submission to Council for a final decision. 9 OFSTED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF OLDHAM'S CHILDREN'S SERVICES Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, People, Communities and Society which provided the Ofsted 2010 judgement of Oldham Councils Children’s Services.

The Chair congratulated all the staff who had contributed to this excellent work.

RESOLVED : That the report and Ofsted judgement of Oldham Council’s Children’s Services be noted. 10 CARE QUALITY COMMISSION ANNUAL RATING OF OLDHAM'S ADULTS' SERVICES Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, People, Communities and Society which provided the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 2010 judgement of Oldham Councils Adult’s Services.

The Vice Chair expressed her gratitude to all staff in the Directorate who had contributed to this excellent result and also thanked the Executive Director People Communities and Society for leading both this and the Ofsted inspection.

RESOLVED : That the report and CQC 2010 judgement of Oldham Council’s Adult Services be noted.

11 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they contain exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and it would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose the reports. 12 APPOINTMENT OF PREFERRED DEVELOPER AND DISPOSAL OF LAND AT SPENCER STREET, WERNETH Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Place and Skills which sought approval to appoint a preferred developer partner to undertake a residential development, subject to securing planning permission.

RESOLVED : That the recommendations, as detailed in the report, be approved. 13 ACQUISITION OF CANNON STREET HEALTH CENTRE, CANNON STREET, OLDHAM Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Place and Skills which sought approval to proceed to acquire the Freehold / long-LeaseholdPage 118 interest in the former Cannon Street Health Centre which was owned by the Primary Care Trust and; upon acquiring the property, market the opportunity on the basis of a short-term lease in order to generate additional revenue to support future work in the West End.

RESOLVED : That the recommendations, as detailed in the report, be approved. 14 FITTON HILL NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE Cabinet gave consideration to a joint report of the Executive Directors , Economy, Place and Skills and People, Communities and Society which sought approval for the implementation of Phase 1 the Fitton Hill Neighbourhood Centre project.

RESOLVED : That the recommendations as detailed within the report be approved.

The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 6.15 pm

Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 120 URGENT KEY DECISIONS TAKEN BY CABINET FROM 8th DECEMBER 2010– 22nd DECEMBER 2010

CABINET – 22nd December 2010

Title of Report Reason the Report was Decision Exempt from Call-in FITTON HILL The Chair agreed to consider an RESOLVED: That the recommendations as detailed within the NEIGHBOURHOOD Item of business – Fitton Hill report be approved. CENTRE Neighbourhood Centre – Joint Report of Executive Directors of Economy Place and Skills and People Communities and Page 121 Society, as a matter of urgency in accordance with S.100 B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972; in order that the contract may be let and the available grant funding secured and spent by March 2011.

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 122 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A Agenda Item 19 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 162 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 168 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 184 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 185 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 186 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 194 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 195 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 230 Agenda Item 20

Council

Overview and Scrutiny: Control of Hot Food Take-Aways

2 February 2011

Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board

Purpose of Report

To advise Council of the outcome of the consideration of the Notice of Motion entitled ‘Control of Hot Food Take-Aways’.

Executive Summary

Council received on 15 September 2010 a Notice of Motion entitled ‘Control of Hot Food Take-Aways’. After consideration of the Motion, it referred the issue to Overview and Scrutiny for investigation. The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board considered the issue at its meeting on 19 October 2010 and attached is the report of the Board.

Recommendation

That Council be requested to note the outcome of the findings of the Management Board in respect of Control of Hot Food Take-Aways.

Page 231 Council 2 February 2011

Overview and Scrutiny: Control of Hot Food Take-Aways

1 Purpose of Paper

1.1 To advise Council of the outcome of the consideration of the Notice of Motion entitled ‘Control of Hot Food Take-Aways’.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That Council be requested to note the outcome of the findings of the Management Board in respect of Control of Hot Food Take-Aways.

3 Background

3.1 Council received on 15 September 2010 a Notice of Motion entitled ‘Control of Hot Food Take-Aways’. After consideration of the Motion, it referred the issue to Overview and Scrutiny for investigation.

3.2 The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board considered the issue at its meeting on 19 October 2010 and attached is the report of the Board. It received a report from officers of the Economy, Places and Skills Directorate, which advised that the council had recently drafted a Local Development Framework Policy which was currently out for consultation.

3.3 The Policy addressed most of the issues raised in the Notice of Motion. Once the consultation was completed, the proposed final document would be presented to the government inspector for scrutiny and approval and, subject to that approval which was expected to be around September 2011, the Council could instigate measures considered appropriate, to control hot food take-aways.

3.4 While the current draft document addressed the first four bullet points which are listed in the Notice of Motion ((i) to (iv) below ), a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would be developed at a later date in which the following two points ((v) to (vi) below ) in the Notice of Motion could be addressed:-

(i) Establish appropriate concentrations of hot food takeaway businesses in town and district centres. (ii) introduce greater measures to protect the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers. (iii) Support measures to address community health issues. Have a greater consideration of the impact on the street scene and public realm. (iv) Have a greater consideration for highway safety.

Page 232

(v) No more than 2 A5 units should be located adjacent to each other. (vi) There should be at least 3 non A5 units between individual and groups of hot food takeaways.

In respect of the next two points ((vii) to (viii) ), it was difficult for the Council to stipulate or enforce any such requirement:- (vii) There should be no new planning permission granted to A5 units that fall within 500 metres of a school. (viii) There should be a possible one off payment of £1,000 to go towards the provision of new litter bins and/or promotion of healthy eating. Following some discussion, the Board welcomed the draft development framework policy and commented that in order to fully address the issues raised, there was a need to lobby central government for a change in planning legislation which provided local authorities with the legislative support to enforce some of the measures to better control hot food takeaways. 3.5 In concluding consideration of the issue, the Management Board requested (i) a report to a future meeting of this Board detailing the outcome of the consultation outlining the powers the new document provided the local authority specifically in relation to hot food takeaways and (ii) suggested that a letter be presented to the Secretary of State with a view to seeking further powers for local authorities in respect of planning issues relating to hot food takeaways

4. Preferred Option

4.1 Not applicable.

5 Consultation

5.1 Not applicable.

6 Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 There are no legal comments.

8 Human Resources Comments

8.1 Not applicable.

Page 233

9. Risk Management

9.1 None arising from this report.

10. IT Implications

10.1 Not applicable.

11 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

11.1 Not applicable.

12 Community Cohesion Implications [including Crime & Disorder Implications in accordance with Section 17 of the Act] and Equalities Implications

12.1 Not applicable.

Updated 12 January 2011 (10:57)

Page 234

Page 235 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 236 Agenda Item 21

COUNCIL

Review of Overview and Scrutiny Project Reports Submitted to Cabinet

Report of Overview and Scrutiny Management Board

2nd February 2010

Officer Contact : Sewa Singh Ext. 3018

Purpose of Report To inform Council of projects instigated by Overview and Scrutiny bodies and the recommendations made to Cabinet.

Recommendations That Council notes the attached reports: 1. Overview and Scrutiny: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Community Cohesion. 2. Overview and Scrutiny: Review of Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP).

Page 237 Council 2nd February 2011

1 Background

1.1 To inform Council of the findings of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Task and Finish Group following consideration and approval by the Economic Prosperity Select Group and Cabinet and to advise Council of the findings of the Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP) Task and Finish Group which have been approved by the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee.

2 Current Position

2.1 The findings and recommendations have been submitted to Cabinet.

3 Options/Alternatives

3.1 N/A

4 Preferred Option

4.1 N/A

5 Consultation

5.1 N/A

6 Financial Implications

6.1 N/A

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 N/A

8 Human Resources Comments

8.1 N/A 9 Risk Assessments

9.1 N/A

10 IT Implications

10.1 N/A

11 Property Implications

11.1 N/A

Page 2 of 4 [DocumentPage 238 Title] [date]

12 Procurement Implications

12.1 N/A

13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

13.1 N/A

14 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

N/A

15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

N/A

16 Key Decision

16.1 No

17 Forward Plan Reference

17.1 N/A

18 Background Papers

18.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act :

File Ref - Projects Name of File: Overview and Scrutiny: Review of Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP) Overview and Scrutiny: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Community Cohesion Records held in Room 435 Officer Name : Sewa Singh Contact No : 3018

19 Appendices

19.1 Appendix 1 a - Overview and Scrutiny: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Community Cohesion Appendix 1 b - Overview and Scrutiny: Review of Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP)

Page 3 of 4 [DocumentPage Title] 239 [date]

Page 4 of 4 [DocumentPage 240 Title] [date]

Appendix 1 a

Council

Overview and Scrutiny: Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Community Cohesion

2nd February 2011

Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Economic Prosperity Select Group

Purpose of Report

To advise Council of the findings of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Task and Finish Group following consideration and approval by the Economic Prosperity Select Group and Cabinet.

Executive Summary

The former Education, Skills and Training Select Group established a Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Community Cohesion Task and Finish Group to look at how community cohesion was being taken into consideration as part of the preparation for school reorganisation to be brought about by the BSF/Academies programme. The Select Group developed the following terms of reference for the T&F Group:

- To examine measures being undertaken by the Council to ensure that community cohesion is considered in the BSF/Academies project, in such a way that it mitigates the risk of community tensions’;

- Ensure that primary school, secondary school and community input is sought; and

- Identify any gaps in the plans.

Page 241 The findings of the task and finish group, together with the recommendations (detailed below) were considered and approved by Cabinet on 20 October 2010, subject to the inclusion of the following words in recommendation 6 between the words ‘that ‘ and ‘an’:-

‘a duty is placed on schools that’

For the purpose of this report, recommendation 6 is shown with the amendment.

(1) That the coordinated and strategic focus in respect of community cohesion and the BSF/Academies Programme, developed since the appointment of the present Interim Service Director, Transforming Learning, be maintained and that gaps, such as that which existed when the former Community Cohesion Coordinator’s post became vacant, be prevented from occurring in the future;

(2) That Schools/ Academies be encouraged to immediately sign up to a Compact Agreement to move further towards a cohesive school reorganisation;

(3) (a) That Schools joining together as a result of the BSF/Academies programme, align their policies and develop agreed joined up approaches in advance of becoming a singular educational entity;

(b) That conflict resolution training be included within any training package developed for staff in preparation for the school reorganisation and beyond, and staff should be strongly encouraged to take up the training;

(4) That, through learning from the experiences of other local authorities in moving towards school reorganisation, small steps be sensitively taken in order to allay fears and encourage cohesion across the local community, in order for the benefits of school reorganisation to be realised;

(5) That the Council and its partners continue to ensure that the public is kept fully aware of / involved in all aspects of the BSF and Academies programme, including creating viewing galleries around sites when buildings are being developed;

(6) (a) That, as part of the Compact Agreement, a procedure be put in place with regard to how Schools/ Academies respond to hate incidents consistently; and

(b) That a duty is placed on schools that an emergency reporting procedure be applied consistently by all schools to ensure that incidents which have a potential impact on community cohesion are reported to the Council and are dealt with through the Oldham Community Tension report;

Page 242

(7) That the Council and its partners continue to ensure that community cohesion remains a priority in all projects/ initiatives by providing advice, practical assistance and, when appropriate, resources, which can have a positive effect on ensuring Community Cohesion through the school reorganisation and beyond;

(8) That community events continue to be arranged to promote the school reorganisation programme and work alongside community events already in place to positively impact on community cohesion prior to the opening of schools and Academies; and

(9) That the Council, by benchmarking itself against other local authorities, looks for innovative ways in which to measure community cohesion, such as learning from the identity toolkit developed by Leicester City Council.

The full report can be viewed in the Cabinet agenda dated 20 October 2010 or by contacting the Overview and Scrutiny team on 0161 770 3018/3932.

Recommendation

That Council note the report.

Updated 3 November 2010

Page 243

Page 244

Appendix 1 b

Council

Overview and Scrutiny: Review of Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP)

2nd February 2011

Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee

Purpose of Report

To advise Council of the findings of the Strategic Service Delivery Partnership (SSDP) Task and Finish Group which have been approved by the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee.

Executive Summary

Following a request for scrutiny, the Performance and Value For Money Select Committee at its meeting in December 2008, agreed to establish a Task and Finish Group to undertake a scrutiny review of the SSDP contract with the following terms of reference:-

To consider:- (i) How effective the SSDP has been in creating additional employment in the Borough and whether targets have been met; (ii) What opportunities for employment will be created by SSDP Phase 2; (iii) How Oldham's SSDP performance compared with other Councils’ SSDP's (iv) The Value For Money aspect of the delivery of services and meeting of targets and efficiencies;

(v) Effectiveness of communications between the Council (as the client), members of the public and Unity (the Contractor);

(vi) The quality of customer services;

Page 245

(vii) Whether there were effective staff relations in terms of employment practices, including disciplinary and dismissal procedures, for those staff that transferred over and new staff recruited since commencement of the contract;

(viii) In respect of the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme, where appropriate, what the levels of recruitment were and the success of those recruitments;

(ix) What the Call Centre response rate was when compared with other local authorities.

In 2009, a small panel of Members commenced the scrutiny review of the SSDP contract and made the following recommendations for consideration by Cabinet based on its findings, as they appear in the report:-

9.1 Develop Customer Service (General Public & Elected Members’

9.1.1 General Comments Customer service interface with the public is primarily via the call centre, but also includes interactions between Unity officers and the public.

9.1.2 Call Centre Revenue & Benefits Services Since the establishment of the call centre many negative comments from the public have been received about the difficulty of communicating with the Council. The call waiting times have generally been unacceptable to callers and the level of missed calls reflects this. Unity have pointed out that they have in general met their contractual commitments but that where there have been issues affecting service levels, a number of measures have been put in place to address those such as staff training so that they are able to deal with a range of different queries and the recruitment of further staff to the Call Centre. As a result, the number of complaints has decreased but it is felt that response times and the general level of customer satisfaction is still probably not as high as we should be achieving.

It was noted that the flexible working hours scheme operated by the Council insofar as it related to the Call Centre resulted in insufficient number of staff being in work at particular times to cover the varying levels of demands on the service. Staffing cover needed to reflect the demands on the service at different times.

Recommendations: 1. A survey of customer satisfaction with the call centre should be carried out. The performance should be benchmarked against other high- performing authorities. 2. The contractual targets in terms of waiting times and lost calls should be reviewed to ensure they are in line with best-performing authorities and other public and private organisations. The Council and Unity

Page 2 of 10 Page [Document 246 Title] [date] should participate in the Government’s Performance Management Framework in order to assess and deliver performance in line with best practice. 3. Call centre cover should match demand and management need to implement procedures to ensure this.

9.1.3 Highways There is confusion amongst both the public and Members with the split of responsibilities between the Council’s Highways Section and Unity and, in general, there are high levels of dissatisfaction with the present arrangement. Council members constantly complain of the poor response to complaints and enquiries both in Unity and the Council’s own highway functions. Councillor Jack Hulme in particular highlighted this in his evidence and members of the panel have provided evidence from their own experience. Officers and Members felt that service levels have not really benefited from the split in responsibilities and the arms length relationship that now exists. Communication is still not good and new schemes are developed by Unity with very little engagement with officers on the client side and elected Members in terms of general priorities, where money should be spent, and how long the scheme should take to complete. The Delph safety scheme has been a recent example of this, with communications with the public by Unity officers causing embarrassment for members. There definitely appears to be a ‘thin client’ relationship at present and there is a need for greater consultation and dialogue in setting priorities and budget monitoring. There appears to be no clear agreed process for how new schemes are developed, who should be consulted and how consultations should be carried out, managed and monitored.

Recommendations: 4. A common interface point should be created within the Council for dealing with all highway matters and queries from the general public and Members, while all consultations should be handled by the relevant service area. 5. A common protocol should be established for initiating all new highway schemes and maintenance programmes. Priorities and costing should be agreed with ward members and District Partnerships before schemes are agreed. Regular feedback should take place with each of these on progress and timescales and quarterly monitoring reports produced for monitoring progress and budget expenditure. 6. Regular progress meetings should take place between the Council and Unity and the minutes of those meetings should be circulated to all Members.

9.1.4 ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Improvements of the Council’s ICT facilities have not progressed as well as they could have. Unity in their evidence indicated that the process of transfer had led to delays in implementing improvements. The full potential of the

Page 3 of 10 [DocumentPage 247Title] [date] partnership in this area has yet to be realised and the communication between the Council as Client and Unity appears to be partly at fault for this. The Council’s failure in specifying its needs to Unity and then managing the Client function effectively in terms of staffing levels, clear direction and vision, what is required from the contract and how that is to be delivered, has clearly contributed to the slow progress.

Recommendation : 7. The council should strengthen its Client function employing officers with appropriate expertise in the ICT area, giving Unity a clear statement of short and long-term requirements, and work with Unity to produce development plans and monitor budget spend and progress of agreed objectives.

9.1.5 Building Management and Services It has not been possible within the time available to assess the effectiveness of communications between the Client and Unity. The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme has been a area of activity for Unity. The BSF client was not interviewed by the Panel so it is not possible to comment in general on how effective this relationship has been. However, a recent project indicated some problems. Stanley Street School in Chadderton is presently being extended to provide additional pupil accommodation; Unity architects produced a contemporary design in conjunction with the school governors but failed to involve Planners in the process. Late changes to the design were requested by OMBC Planners which threatened timescales for the project. This need not have happened if some pre-application discussions, as is normal in such cases, had taken place.

9.2 Improve Performance and Efficiency

9.2.1 General Comments To date, Unity has essentially limited its activities to serving the council and therefore no significant economies of scale have yet been achieved. Based on the evidence to date, and the current economic climate, there appears to be very little prospect of Unity significantly growing its business elsewhere. This was the general picture painted by Unity in their evidence. It seems inevitable that unless economies of scale are produced by broadening its customer base, the efficiencies of partnership working will not be realised. Unity committed to deliver top quartile performance within three years of the transfer of each service. Upper quartile information was only relevant to the Revenue and Benefits Services. However, recent changes by central government resulted in the quartile benchmarking information being disbanded. In respect of the Contact Centre, central government has only just agreed to include benchmarking information for this as part of the Government Management Framework.

It is suggested that the Council and Unity should participate in the Government’s Performance Management Framework in order to assess and deliver performance in line with best practice.

Page 4 of 10 Page [Document 248 Title] [date]

Recommendation: 8. That Unity should be strongly encouraged to make every effort to expand its client base in order that the partnership can benefit from economies of scale.

9.2.2 Call Centre, Revenue & Benefits Services Improvements have taken place over the last twelve months in the way the call centre operates and in staffing policies. More flexible working has now been introduced and policies are in place to better manage peak demand. This has led to a definite improvement in customer service levels. In respect of Revenue and Benefits Service, there has been much improvement. Performance reports need to continue to be submitted to the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee to ensure that there is continuous involvement of the Council’s formal elected Member processes.

Recommendations:

9. To ensure that continuous improvement is made in the collection of debt, the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee should receive 6 monthly progress reports on those services managed by Unity, with recommendations for further improvements suggested by the Select Committee being considered by the relevant officers in Unity and the Council.

9.2.3 Highways Timescales to address work sometimes seem excessive (Brownhill Bridge in Dobcross was quoted by as an example of unacceptable and protracted timescales and Mike Buckley, as chairman of the panel, has cited the long period of time to implement double yellow lines in Dobcross and the A62 safety scheme). Value for money is also questionable. The high cost and “belt and braces” safety schemes have come in for public criticism (Parish Member, Councillor Ken Hulme and others on the A62). It was suggested that the council did not really monitor the way the budget was spent in these areas and that there was little incentive for Unity to drive down costs. These deficiencies appear now to have been recognised by senior management in both organisations. There is particular concern also that Unity is paid a percentage of the value of each scheme, removing any incentive for Unity to keep the cost of schemes as low as possible. It is felt that better project planning and monitoring is required on highways schemes if problems such as this are to be avoided. From the beginning it was expected that the Partnership would serve a wider customer base than just the Council and that extra expertise would be developed and be available. So far this has not taken place.

Recommendations:

Page 5 of 10 [DocumentPage 249Title] [date] 10. Implement better planning, cost benefit analysis and budgetary control systems for large projects. 11. There is a need for the Council to give better guidance to Unity on priorities, and focus more on the need to achieve value for money.

9.2.4 ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Development of ICT services have been delayed due to staffing problems but improvements in ICT and the development of the ICT Strategy should be addressed with the appointment of the Interim Head of ICT who will also bring about effective governance arrangements to ensure that they are in line with best practice.

12. The interim Head of ICT should produce and implement, in collaboration with Unity, a governance structure, with clear accountabilities for the Council and Unity, that ensures there is more rigour in how ICT is commissioned, purchased and deployed, ensuring that it is in line with best practice and ensures that the Council receives Value for Money.

9.2.5 Building Management and Services The building management function in the Council has long suffered from a lack of clear direction, and central support. As a result it has performed weakly. The transfer of part of the function to Unity does not appear yet to have resulted in significant improvements. Much of the blame for this lies with the Council. Steve Morris of Mouchel and others in their evidence indicated that the Council have not given sufficient guidance on priorities and requirements to Unity. This particularly applies to Building Management. For several years the Council has considered establishing a corporate landlord function which would provide for central planning and management of the council’s property portfolio. This has never happened. Properties are abandoned by departments without any clear idea of what is to happen to the vacated buildings. The Old Town Hall is the prime example of this policy vacuum, but the problem is endemic. Many other examples can be cited of sound properties deteriorating after being vacated. Lack of adequate maintenance of the buildings stock is also still a major problem, even when occupied. Securing empty buildings is also an expensive and non-productive activity. Large amounts of money are being wasted by deteriorating assets arising from inadequate investment in maintenance. The council need to address these problems as a matter of priority.

Recommendations: 13. The Council should adopt the planned corporate landlord arrangement as a matter of priority. Following this a property portfolio review should take place together with an accommodation rationalisation exercise.

Page 6 of 10 Page [Document 250 Title] [date] Heritage buildings should be identified, their heritage value assessed and a conservation plan for them adopted. 14. A condition survey of all Council buildings should be carried out by Unity and a renovation and maintenance programme drawn up and costed. This should be funded by capital receipts if necessary. 15. Policies should be adopted which prevent departments vacating buildings until buyers or new uses have been found for them.

9.3 Create Local Jobs and Enhanced Quality Employment Opportunities At the time the partnership was established Unity committed to a large number of jobs to be created within Oldham over the course of the Partnership. These were listed in a paper produced in 2007. Unity pledged to create 350 net new jobs over the life of the partnership; 247 of these in Phase 1. The schedule in Table 1 below shows the achievements to date. Unity had a target of 62 jobs to be created by end of Year 2 with a tolerance allowance built in of 20%. Upon review, it was established that it had created 57 jobs at the end of Year 2 (16 in Year 1 and 41 in Year 2).

Table 1 Year 3 Year 6 Year 9 End (2010) (2013) (2016) Phase 1 158 240 243 247 Phase 2 48 95 100 103 Phase 206 335 343 350 1+2

Training opportunities in Oldham were also seen as a major aspect of setting up the partnership and Unity committed to a significant number of apprenticeships and other training opportunities. These are set out in Table 2 below. However, it is understood that at the end of Year 2, the following had not been met:-

• Modern Apprenticeships – only 4 had been recruited by end of Year 2 and it is anticipated that the target will be achieved by end of Year 3 • Mature Apprenticeships – at end of year 2, this had not been met and it is anticipated that the target will be achieved by end of Year 3 • Post School Work Experience • Access to Unity Training Facilities – only 120 hours of training had been undertaken at end of Year 2 with further required to meet obligations for Year 3 and beyond

Table 2 Year Year 4 Year 6 Year 8 Year 10 Total 2 Modern 5 5 5 10 20 45 Apprenticeships Mature 2 5 5 10 10 32

Page 7 of 10 [DocumentPage 251Title] [date] Apprenticeships Basic Skills 5 10 (in 15 (in 20 (in 20 125 Mentoring years years years 3,4&5) 6&7) 8&9) Mentoring for 10 20, 30 & 50 (in 50 & 75 75 400 students 40 (in years (in years years 6&7) 8&9) 3,4&5) Work 5 5, 10 & 10 10 & 20 20 & 20 25 125 experience (in years (in (in years opportunities 3,4&5) years 8&9) 6&7) Post school 2 5, 5 & 5 5 & 10 10 & 10 10 62 work (in years (in (in years experience 3,4&5) years 8&9) 6&7) Access to Unity 100 100, 100 150 & 150 & 200 1300 training facilities hrs & 150 (in 150 (in 200 (in years years years 3,4&5) 6&7) 8&9)

It is noted that Unity did not recruit any modern apprentices in Year 1. However, it actually created 4 in year 2 and expects to create a further 4 each in years 3 and 4 resulting in a total of 12. (See 4.6.2)

Because Unity has not significantly expanded its activities beyond servicing the Council there has been little or no creation of any new jobs for local people. It is clear from evidence received from the Unions that the promised career development opportunities for staff have also so far not been achieved. It seems unlikely this will happen in the near future in view of the present economic climate and Unity’s lack of progress in expanding its business activities.

Trades Unions in evidence complained at the lack of consultation by Unity and the lack of regular meetings. Relationships with Trades Unions Branch Secretaries is generally poor and in some cases non-existent. At the time of formation Unity agreed to recognise all three trades unions and to establish jointly agreed consultation mechanisms. So far the latter does not appear to have happened. This has in part been due to the lack, until recently, of an effective Human Resources function. Unions reported that there appears to be a resistance to allow trades unions to recruit new members although there is no evidence to support this. It is noted however, that Unity agreed to fund facility time at branch level.

Recommendations : 16. Unity’s commitment to job creation needs to be reviewed in the light of the present business climate and Unity’s failure to expand its customer base. A strategy needs to be developed jointly by Unity and the

Page 8 of 10 Page [Document 252 Title] [date] Council setting out realistic targets and how quality employment opportunities will be achieved and brought into the Partnership. 17. Unity should explore ways of improving consultation arrangements with the trades unions.

9.4 Regenerate Areas of the Borough

Unity’s plans were to achieve business growth in the early years of the partnership by supporting expansion of the council’s client side services. Regeneration activities were expected to centre around highway schemes and building design and management services for such council initiatives as HMR, BSF, NDC and Housing PFI, also in supporting the Council on general regeneration projects such as the Town Centre, Mumps and Hollinwood Junction developments and other public sector schemes including the PCT LIFT initiatives and Metrolink. The recession has affected the private sector initiatives but most of the public sector programmes continue relatively unscathed. Although some new business has been secured in the areas of retaining walls and street lighting much of Unity’s planned business growth in all these areas would appear not to have materialised. A new business centre planned for the end of 2010 with specifications agreed by March 2009 does not appear to be progressing. It is understood that the Council and Unity have been unable to specify the current requirements for the business centre in the context of the Council’s wider Town Centre regeneration plans. As such this matter is likely to be reviewed as part of the phase 2 negotiations.

9.5 Accelerate Innovation Given the current curtailed extent of the work of the Partnership and the information received, there is no evidence to suggest that this has happened at a greater rate than it would have done otherwise.

9.6 Benefit Community Cohesion by Making Opportunities Available to all Sections of the Community

Progress in the development of the equalities policy to achieve Level 2 of the Development Agency’s Equality Standard has been put on hold while key officers within the Council, who would have responsibility for the development of this, were in a more informed position to continue to do so. In the meantime, Unity Partnership achieved Level 1 of the Development Agency’s Equality Standard in May 2008. Since that time, a new framework and measure for achieving equality standards in public sector organisations was announced and published and became the framework by which all local government bodies were to be assessed by September 2009. A key contact is now in post with whom Unity can liaise and the Equality Team are familiarising themselves with the new framework. The Council’s achievement level against the new framework, support and consultation on achieving the framework is currently on hold. Officers from the team have provided support and consultation to Unity on carrying out Equality Impact Assessments within project planning, particularly for Access Oldham and Unity’s Benefits Service.

Page 9 of 10 [DocumentPage 253Title] [date]

There is no evidence to show that Unity’s recruitment practices create employment opportunities for Black Minority Ethnic members of the community. There is more transparency required in the recruitment policy of the Partnership.

Recommendation :

18. Unity ensures that in its Recruitment Policy, there is a clear indication of its equal opportunities policy and how it intends to meet this.

9.6 Governance

While there is evidence which shows a lack of an effective and clear leadership on the part of Mouchel which has resulted in slow progress of the partnership, there is also a need for the Council to provide some of the leadership and to work with Mouchel to ensure that the main aims and objectives of the Partnership are delivered. The current Contract does not appear to be flexible enough to enable changes to be made, or a review to be undertaken, to sections of the contract where the partnership was not working. This needs to be addressed as part of the Phase 2 negotiations.

Recommendation :

19. That as part of the negotiations for Phase 2 of the Contract, the Council in collaboration with Unity, ensures that a very detailed, clear and robust business plan is developed which reflects the aspirations of both Mouchel and the Council.

The full report can be viewed in the Cabinet agenda dated 24 November 2010 or by contacting the Overview and Scrutiny team on 0161 770 3018/3932.

Recommendation

That Council note the report.

Updated 16 November 2010

Page 10 of 10 Page [Document 254 Title] [date] Agenda Item 22

COUNCIL

Dog Control Orders

Report of Executive Director - Economy Place & Skills

Portfolio Holder : Councillor R. Blyth - Community Safety and Public Protection

2 February 2011

Officer Contact : Graham Boundy, Head of Service Public Protection Ext. 4494

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to brief Members on the legal provisions of Dog Control Orders as outlined in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and to seek the approval of full Council to introduce additional Dog Control Orders within the Borough of Oldham.

Executive Summary

Dog Control Orders are already in place which control dog fouling; require dogs on leads in all the cemeteries within the Borough; and exclude dogs from many play areas within the Borough. The report recommends that the additional orders are introduced to exclude dogs from all remaining play areas in parks and to limit the number of dogs an owner can take into a park at any one time. However due to the significant negative response from the public to the proposal to require dogs on leads in seven of the Borough`s parks the report suggests that further evidence gathering is undertaken before the Council considers whether dogs in parks should be kept on a lead at all times.

Page 255

Recommendations

It is recommended that Council ;

i) Note the provisions of the legislation relating to Dog Control Orders and the results of the consultation process.

ii) Approve the introduction of the Dog Exclusion Order and the Dogs Specified Maximum Order within the Borough as detailed in Appendix I of this report.

iii) Defer the decision regarding the Dogs on Leads Order requiring dogs to be kept on a lead in the Borough’s parks whilst further evidence is gathered.

Page 256 Council 2 February 2011

Dog Control Orders

1 Background

1.1 The Dog Control Order (Prescribed Offences & Penalties etc) Regulations 2006 and the Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006 implement sections 55 and 56 of The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 relating to prescribing offences, penalties and procedures for making Dog Control Orders.

1.2 Dog Control Orders can be used to prescribe offences for the manner in which dogs are controlled in certain public places. Dog Control Orders are already in place which control dog fouling; require dogs on leads in all the cemeteries within the Borough; and exclude dogs from many play areas within the Borough.

1.3 Guidance provided by the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) advises that any Order made must be proportionate to the problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them. A balance must be struck between the interests of those in charge of dogs and the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs. More specifically a local authority must balance the needs of people, in particular children, to have access to dog free areas and areas where dogs are kept under strict control, against the need for those in charge of dogs to have access to areas where they can exercise their dogs without undue restrictions. A failure to give due consideration to these factors could make an order vulnerable to challenge in the Courts.

1.4 The Dog Control Order (Prescribed Offences & Penalties etc) Regulations 2006 provide for offences which may be prescribed in a Dog Control Order as follows:

i) failing to remove dog faeces; ii) failing to keep a dog on a lead; iii) failing to put, and keep, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer; iv) permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded; and v) failing to comply with an Order restricting the number of dogs a person can take onto land at one time.

1.5 In June 2009 Oldham Council enacted the following Dog Control Orders;

Page 257 i) The Dogs On Leads Borough of Oldham Order 2009

Dogs must be kept on a lead in all cemeteries, crematoria and associated memorial gardens. Anyone in charge of a dog in these areas who fails to keep their dog on a lead, shall be guilty of an offence.

ii) Dogs Exclusion Borough of Oldham Order 2009

Dogs are prohibited from specified children’s play areas within parks and public places (not all parks/play areas within the Borough are included in this Order). Anyone in charge of a dog, who allows it to enter into one of these areas, is guilty of an offence.

iii) The Fouling of Land by Dogs Borough of Oldham Order 2009

If a dog defecates at any time on designated land and a person who is in charge of the dog at that time fails to remove the faeces from the land forthwith, that person is guilty of an offence. For the purpose of this Order, designated land is any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) unless exemptions apply.

1.6 It should be noted that in 2009 there were only 12 responses received after the statutory consultation for the above Orders. The majority of these responses were supportive and these Orders were implemented with little or no opposition. For this reason the significant response and objection to the proposed dogs on leads order was totally unforeseen.

2 Current Position

Page 258 2.1 In 2009/10 the Council received 1290 service requests relating to dogs and these mostly referred to problems with dog fouling and stray dogs. These service requests/complaints apply to all areas of the Borough and it is not possible to calculate how many relate specifically to dog problems in parks. In addition, the Council has anecdotal information from parks staff regarding dog related incidents in parks but very little documented evidence. However both parks and street scene staff regularly raise the hazard dog fouling creates with regard to their operational activities whether this cleaning it up or contamination to themselves, their clothes or their machinery.

2.2 In January 2010 a petition with 330 signatures was received by the Council regarding Higher Memorial Park Failsworth requesting reinstatement of the perimeter fence around the children’s play area. The petition highlighted the problem of dogs roaming free in the park and parks staff confirmed that dogs in this play area were indeed causing a nuisance. The fencing has since been reinstated but the petition and accompanying letter does highlight the problems that uncontrolled dogs create in parks.

2.3 Dog fouling issues are consistently raised at the PACT meetings across the Borough and several of the District Partnerships have funded a targeted enforcement initiative related to dog fouling. This initiative targeted parks in particular and highlighted that dog owners need to control their pets more closely as the majority issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for failing to pick up after their dogs were actually carrying bags. Most offenders claimed that they would normally pick up, but for whatever reason, usually because the dog was off the lead and out of sight, they failed to see the dog foul.

2.4 Enforcement Officers within the Environmental Health service currently enforce the existing Dog Control Orders. They have served 70 FPNs since 1 April 2010, mostly relating to dog fouling in the parks but 5 FPNs have been served for dogs off lead in the cemeteries.

2.5 In August 2010, Cabinet agreed that officers could commence statutory consultation on establishing the additional Dog Control Orders.

2.6 In line with the legal requirements relating to establishing the Orders, statutory consultation took place between the 25 th August 2010 and the 27 th September 2010. A Notice was published in the local press and on the Council website outlining the proposals and the process for making representations.

2.7 The proposals subject to consultation were that :

i) All play areas in parks are covered by a Dogs Exclusion Order.

Page 259 ii) The number of dogs an owner can take into any park at any given time is limited to 4, a figure based on DEFRA guidance regarding Dog Control Orders. (Dogs (Specified Maximum) Order). iii) All dogs in seven of the Borough’s urban parks (which have been specifically chosen because either they have achieved Green Flag status or have had particular issues with dog control) must be kept on a lead. (Dogs on Leads Order).

2.8 In addition to the formal consultation, informal consultation was undertaken as follows;

i) All Elected Members received a copy of the notice detailing the proposals. ii) The Notice was shared with Parks for distribution to Friends of the Parks. iii) All Neighbourhood Managers received a copy of the Notice. iv) Parks and Street Scene managers were also consulted.

2.9 The responses to the statutory consultation are summarised in Appendix III. It is clear that the statutory consultation to extend these Dog Control Orders has generated a much greater response compared with the 2009 consultation. This response is overwhelmingly negative with respect to the proposal to introduce a dogs on leads order in seven of the Borough’s parks

2.10 The responses to the informal consultation are summarised in Appendix IV

3 Options/Alternatives

3.1 Option 1: Do nothing - This will mean that existing Orders will continue, but:-

i) dog exclusion will not apply to all children’s play areas within the Borough. ii) a single dog walker will be able to have more than four dogs under their control at any one time within all the Borough’s parks. iii) there will be no requirement to keep dogs on leads in the Borough’s Green Flag parks or a park where dogs have caused particular problems.

3.2 Option 2: Introduce all the Orders, including the Dogs on Leads Order for all 7 parks. This would:-

Page 260 i) apply dog exclusion to all children’s play areas within the Borough. ii) a single dog walker will be unable to have more than four dogs under their control at any one time within all the Borough’s parks. iii) there will be a requirement to keep dogs on leads in the Borough’s Green Flag parks or a park where dogs have caused particular problems.

3.3 Option 3: Introduce the Dogs (Specified Maximum) Order and the Dogs Exclusion Order. Defer implementing the Dogs on Leads Order until more evidence is collected in order to make a more informed judgement. This evidence will be gathered by Parks staff over a 9 month period from February to October 2011. A further statutory consultation would be required in the event sufficient evidence is obtained to consider the introduction of dogs on leads in any of the parks.

4 Preferred Option

4.1 Option 3: that Council approves the enactment of the following Dog Control Orders;

i) Dogs (Specified Maximum) Order

In order to improve dog control, no more than four dogs may be taken into certain parks at any one time (see appendix I). Anyone taking more than four dogs into these parks at any one time shall be guilty of an offence. These parks will have appropriate signage to inform the public of their responsibilities under the new Order.

ii) Dogs Exclusion Order

The existing Dog Exclusion: Borough of Oldham Order 2009 prohibits dogs from children’s play areas within certain parks and public places (see appendix II). A new Dogs Exclusion Order is proposed to include the children’s play areas that were omitted from the existing Order (see appendix I). Anyone in charge of a dog who allows it to enter into one of these areas, shall be guilty of an offence. These areas will have appropriate signage to inform the public of their responsibilities under the new Order.

5 Consultation

Page 261

5.1 Statutory consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of The Dog Control Order (Procedures) Regulations 2006 outlined in paragraph 1.8. The results of this are summarised in Appendix III.

5.2 In addition to the statutory consultation, informal consultation took place, outlined in paragraph 1.9. The results of this are summarised in Appendix IV.

6 Financial Implications

6.1 The financial implications that arise from this report total £1,333.50 for the additional signage/notices. These additional costs will be charged against 22402 R40009 and will be met from existing resources and will not place increased pressures on the budget. JK/SA 19/11/10

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 The Authority may make Dog Control Orders provided that it is satisfied that an Order is justified and the necessary procedures have been followed (1.7). Under section 57 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, a Dog Control Order can be made in respect of any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment). It is important for the Authority in considering a Dog Control Order to be able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them. A failure of the Authority to balance the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs and to give due consideration to these factors could make any subsequent Dog Control Order vulnerable to challenge in the Courts. Natalie Dunn 29/11/10

8 IT Implications

8.1 None

9 Property Implications

9.1 None

10 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

10.1 These Dog Control Orders will strengthen the clean and green agenda and bring about environmental improvement through education and enforcement of dog fouling problems in the public areas.

Page 262 These Dog Control Orders will improve public safety in specific areas where dogs are excluded or where the maximum number per walker is controlled.

Officers enforcing the legislation have been trained in issuing fixed penalty notices and the activity risk assessed.

11 Equality, Community Cohesion and Crime Implications

11.1 Dog control measures if implemented will have a positive impact on community cohesion by improving accessibility to public spaces for all.

12 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

12.1 Yes

13 Key Decision

13.1 Yes

14 Forward Plan Reference

14.1 EPS-76-10

15 Background Papers

15.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act :

File Ref : Copy of all responses both email and letter Name of File : Response to Dog Control Consultation 2010 Records held in Environmental Health Department, Chadderton Town Hall, Middleton Road, Chadderton, Oldham, OL9 6PP Officer Name : Kathryn Kelly Contact No : 4455

16 Appendices

16.1 Appendix I - The notice outlining the proposed Dog Control Orders

16.2 Appendix II - Dog Exclusion: Borough of Oldham Order 2009

16.2 Appendix III - The summary of responses to the formal consultation

16.3 Appendix IV - The summary of responses to the informal consultation

16.4 Appendix V - Initial Equality Impact Assessment

Page 263

Page 264 Appendix I

Dog Control Order Consultation 2010

The Council proposes to make the following Dog Control Orders within the Borough of Oldham under Section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Dog Control Orders replace the previous system of byelaws for the control of dogs.

Order Proposals:

1. Dog Exclusion

A person in charge of a dog shall be guilty of an offence if, at any time, he takes the dog onto, or permits the dog to enter or to remain, on any land to which this Order applies unless –

(a) he has a reasonable excuse for doing so; or (b) the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of this land has consented (generally or specifically) to his doing so.

The offence does not apply to a person who –

(a) is registered as a blind person in a register compiled under section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948; or (b) is deaf, in respect of a dog trained by the Hearing Dogs for Deaf People (registered charity number 293358) and upon which he relies for assistance; or (c) has a disability which affects his mobility, manual dexterity, physical coordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects, in respect of a dog trained by a prescribed charity and upon which he relies for assistance.

For the purposes of the proposed order –

(a) a person who habitually has a dog in his possession shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog; and (b) each of the following is a prescribed charity

(i) Dogs for the Disabled (registered charity number 700454); (ii) Support Dogs (registered charity number 1088281); (iii) Canine Partners for Independence (registered charity number 803680).

A person who is guilty of an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Page 265 Schedule

This order applies to land which is within the administrative area of the Borough of Oldham and which is the following children’s play areas: - Ash Square Bardsley Beresford Street MUGA Bolton Street MUGA Crompton Street MUGA Churchill PF – Skate Diggle tip–adj Huddersfield Canal Diggle Ward, Lane Gordon Street Granby Street MUGA Lynn Street Milne Street MUGA Milne Street Monmouth Street Newbury Walk MUGA Newbury Walk/Bentley Walk Oakpit MUGA Oakpit Skate Park Royton Skate Park Sandringham Park Stanford Drive Totts Loch – Daisy Nook Whitehall Lane Whitehall Lane MUGA Higginson Lane MUGA Fitton Hill Skate Park

2. Dogs on Leads

A person in charge of a dog shall be guilty of an offence if, at any time, on any land to which this Order applies he does not keep the dog on a lead unless –

(a) he has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so: or (b) the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to failing to do so.

For the purpose of this order a person who habitually has a dog in his possession shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog.

A person who is guilty of an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Page 266 Schedule

This order will apply to land which is within the administrative area of the Borough of Oldham and which is the following parks:-

• Alexandra Park • Foxdenton Park • Chadderton Hall Park • Stoneleigh Park • Brownhill Sensory Garden • High Crompton Park • Higher Memorial Park Failsworth

3. Dogs Specified Maximum

A person in charge of more than four dogs shall be guilty of an offence if, at any time, he takes on to any land in respect of which this Order applies more than the maximum number of four dogs unless –

(a) he has a reasonable excuse for doing so; or (b) the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of this land has consented (generally or specifically) to his doing so.

For the purposes of the proposed order a person who habitually has a dog in his possession shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog.

A person who is guilty of an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Page 267

Schedule

This order applies to land which is within the administrative area of the Borough of Oldham and which is the following parks :

Dogford Park Stoneleigh Park Werneth Park Foxdenton Park Coalshaw Green Park Royton Park Copster Park High Crompton Park Lees Park Bullcote Park Lower Memorial Park Westwood Park Broadway/Shaw Road End George Street Playing Fields Chadderton Hall Park Dunwood Park Higher Memorial Park Waterhead Park Princess Park Incline Road Keb Lane Station Road Grotton Wendlebury Green Ladhill Lane Wildmoore Avenue Pearly Bank The Woolpack Ash Square Bardsley Beresford Street Bolton Street Crompton Street Diggle tip–adj Huddersfield Canal Granby Street Milne Street MUGA Milne Street play area Newbury Walk MUGA Sandringham Park Whitehall Lane Play area Whitehall Lane MUGA Higginson Lane MUGA Holland Close Ashbourne Square Conrad Close Denshaw Road Daisy Nook Country Park

Page 268 Page No 14 Tandle Hills Country Park Crossley Playing Fields Lord Lane Playing Fields Alexandra Park Wibsey Playing Fields Oldham Edge Playing Fields

A copy of the proposal and maps identifying the land described in the schedules to the Dogs on Leads, Dog Exclusion and Dogs Specified Maximum Orders will be available for inspection free of charge throughout the consultation period at Rochdale Road Reception, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham between the hours of 8.40am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday. This information can also be viewed on the Council website by going to www.oldham.gov.uk

Representations on the proposed Dog Control Orders should be made in writing to Kathryn Kelly, Acting Group Manager Environmental Health & Registrars, Oldham Council, Economy, Place & Skills Directorate, Chadderton Town Hall, Chadderton, OL9 6PP or at [email protected] by the 27th September 2010.

Dated : 25 th August 2010

Paul Entwistle Borough Solicitor Oldham Council Civic Centre West Street Oldham OL1 1UL

Page 269 Page No 15 Appendix II

The Dog Exclusion Borough of Oldham Order 2009 already applies to the following the following children’s play areas : -

Children’s Play Area at Dogford Park Children’s Play Area at Stoneleigh Park Children’s Play Area at Werneth Park Play area and Paddling Pool at Alexandra Park Children’s Play Area at Foxdenton Park Children’s Play area at Coalshaw Green Park Children’s Play Area at Royton Park Children’s Play Area at Copster Park Children’s Play Area at High Crompton Park Children’s Play Area at Tandle Hill Park Children’s Play Area at Lees Park Children’s Play Area at Bullcote Park Children’s Play Area at Lower Memorial Park Children’s Play Area at Westwood Park Children’s Play Area at Broadway/Shaw Road End Children’s Play Area at George Street Playing Fields Children’s Play Area at Chadderton Hall Park Children’s Play Area at Dunwood Park Children’s Play Area at Higher Memorial Park Children’s Play Area at Waterhead Park Children’s Play Area at Princess Park Children’s Play Area at Incline Road Children’s Play Area at Keb Lane Children’s Play Area at Saint Chadds Uppermill Children’s Play Area at Station Road Grotton Childrens Play area at Queen Street Children’s Play Area at Incline road Children’s Play Area at St. Martins Children’s Play Area at Sickle Street Children’s Play Area at Wendlebury Green Children’s Play Area at Wedhurst Street Children’s Play Area at Wessex Park Close Children’s Play Area at Ladhill Lane Children’s Play Area at Wildmoore Avenue Children’s Play Area at Mills Rec Children’s Play Area at Cardigan Road Children’s Play Area at Pearly Bank Children’s Play Area at Moor Street Children’s Play Area at the Woolpack Children’s Play Area at Edward Street Children’s Play Area at Eldon Street Children’s Play Area at Hey Crescent Children’s Play Area at Holland Close Children’s Play Area at Sunfield Lane Children’s Play Area at Angelico Rise Children’s Play Area at Ashbourne Square

Page 270 Page No 16 Children’s Play Area at Conrad Close Children’s Play Area at Wisbey Children’s Play Area at Denshaw Road

Page 271 Page No 17 Appendix III

Summary of responses to formal statutory consultation

In total 52 emails, 67 letters and 1 petition have been received in response to this consultation and are available on request. All have received a personal written response from the Acting Group Manager, Environmental Health & Registrars.

The table collates the responses received.

Objections re all proposed Orders 19 Objections relating to mainly the Dogs on Leads proposal 82 Petition objecting mainly to the Dogs on Leads proposal 92 Objections re Exclusion of Dogs 0 Objections re Maximum No. of Dogs 2 Support for Orders 16 Total Number of Responses 211

A letter was received objecting primarily to the Dogs on Leads Order and contained a total of 70 signatures, however this was discounted as no address details were provided by the respondents.

This significant response should be compared with the consultation on Dog Control Orders 2009 which generated only 12 responses because the proposals were far less less contentious.

However, the 2010 consultation proposed to extend the requirement for dogs on leads (which currently only applies only to cemeteries etc) to seven of the Borough’s parks and the table shows that it is this Dogs on Leads Order which has provoked the majority of the negative responses.

Further Relevant Information gathered from comments made by Respondees

• Dog walkers act as unofficial park wardens who value their park - clearing up glass etc to protect their dogs and reporting damage etc.

• If the orders are introduced then dog walking areas should be designed within the parks affected.

• Control Orders will not change irresponsible owners and there is widespread support for tough action on offenders.

• Elderly people are the most adversely affected and least able to find areas further away to walk their dogs. The issue of carbon footprint was also raised re driving to alternative dog walking areas.

• Dog walking in parks promotes healthier people as well as dogs. Page 272 Page No 18 Appendix IV

Responses to Informal Consultation

Street Scene Comments

• Research shows that 1 in 5 households in the Northwest have a dog. If this information is correct that would mean that there are 44,000 dogs in the Borough of Oldham.

• Our annual DLEQSE survey 2009/2010 shows that 37% of street litter was dog faeces, meaning it is a significant problem, especially on the streets leading up to parks.

• There are over 1000 litter bins across the Borough, but staff are still finding bagged dog mess hung on fences, trees or on the ground.

• The issue of dogs and dog fouling has been raised at almost every public meeting Street Scene has attended over the last 5 years. Tenants & residents groups, Homewatch and Eco Schools network meetings have all raised issues with dog fouling and dogs off leads.

• The annual Litterwatcher survey records that dog fouling is a top three priority.

• To date this year Street Scene have received 178 service requests to clear up dog fouling, which can cost up to £100/hour.

• The Grounds Maintenance teams come into direct contact with dog waste when grass cutting, weeding etc and each year there are incidents where staff have got dog faeces on themselves and their clothes. They also have to clean dog faeces from machinery blades which is not only a hazard but also takes resources away from other maintenance duties.

Peter Rafferty Service Manager, Street Scene

Page 273 Page No 19 Parks and Countryside Comments

• Over the last century Oldham has created an extensive open space resource; 21 Urban Parks, 3 Country Parks and 3 major rural valleys.

• The parks where the Dogs on Leads Order are proposed represents a small percentage of the total open space available in Oldham to walk dogs off the lead

• Parks and Countryside consult with partner organisations, schools, Friends of the Cemeteries, Countryside volunteers and sports clubs, and the second most frequent complaint after anti-social behaviour is dog fouling.

• Parks staff have to regularly clean up dog mess despite the presence of many bins and again the second most frequent complaint after anti- social behaviour is dog fouling.

• .During the recent Borough-wide consultation on the construction of the 22 new play areas, through the Play Builder programme, dogs and dog fouling was the major concern.

• The proposal to introduce the Dogs on Leads Order in 7 of the Boroughs Parks will be well received, certainly by staff and the majority of the users. It is hoped this will reduce the dog fouling problem significantly in the well used urban parks.

Steve Smith Group Manager Parks, Cemeteries and Green Spaces Kings Road OL8 2BH

Page 274 Page No 20

Environmental Action Unit (Environmental Health) Comments

• Officers from the Environmental Action Unit have witnessed dogs play fighting off the lead in Chadderton Hall Park and received a complaint of a dog attack on 2 smaller dogs in this park.

• In High Crompton Park officers saw two ladies walking 16 dogs. Other walkers spoke to the officers and said that they keep their dogs on the leads and would welcome the proposed new Order.

• The majority of Fixed Penalty Notices for dog fouling have been issued to dog walkers carrying bags. They also tend to claim that they did not see their dog foul because it was exercising away from them.

• Recent publicity around the dog fouling enforcement in the Borough has attracted a lot of positive comments from members of the public who have posted their comments after articles published on the Oldham Chronicle on line news.

Page 275 Page No 21 Appendix V

INITIAL EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Department Public Protection 2. Section Environmental Health & Registrars Group 3. Who is responsible for the 4. Lead Officer 5. Others Assessment? involved Kathryn Kelly Kathryn Kelly Samantha Jackson 6. Name of the Dog Control 7. Is this a new 1 order is new Policy to be Orders or existing and 1 is an assessed policy addition to an existing order 8. Date of Assessment 10th October 2010 9. Describe the aims, objectives To protect the public from the and purpose of the policy problems that may be caused by dogs in public places, whilst balancing the right of dog owners to walk & exercise their dogs in a responsible way. The policy will be set through the introduction of dog control orders that will prohibit dogs from children’s play areas which were missed off the 2009 order, require dogs to be kept on leads in 7 of the Boroughs parks and prevent more than 4 dogs being taken into a park by one person at any one time. 10a What data do you have that Details of service requests relating to you can draw upon to support this dog issues; responses to the assessment? Statutory Consultation process and the informal consultation process. 10b What does this data say? Approximately 1,300 service requests relating to dogs are received by the Council each year. Responses to the statutory consultation process are summarised in the report and appear in general to support the proposals for the Dogs(Specified Maximum)Order and the Dogs Exclusion Order. However there is only limited support for the Dogs on Leads Order and the majority of responses object to this Order.

Page 276 Page No 22

11a What recent consultation has Statutory consultation has taken been undertaken that you could place where a notice was placed in draw upon to support this the local newspaper and on the assessment and who was it with? Council’s website where people were invited to submit representations in writing. Informal consultation took place by informing elected members, Friends of the Park, Neighbourhood Managers and both the Parks and Countryside and Street Scene Departments.

11b What did t hey say? Responses to the statutory consultation appear in general to support the proposals for the Dogs(Specified Maximum)Order and the Dogs Exclusion Order but object to the Dogs on Leads Order. The informal consultation shows overwhelming support from both the Parks and Countryside and Street Scene Departments because the staffs from these departments have to deal daily with nuisance dogs and/or are involved in cleaning up dog fouling.

12a Are there any experts/relevant Elected members, Parks and groups who you can approach to Countryside, Friends of the Parks and explore their views? Street Scene have been approached.

Page 277 Page No 23

12b Please give details of who you See 11b have approached and what they said: 13a Taking into account the information gathered: No. The policy will be applied Could this Policy/Project impact on consistently across all areas. any of the following groups differently? No. The policy will be applied Could any of the following groups consistently across all areas. experience of this policy/project be different? No Could this different impact be negative? Please explain drawing on evidence that supports your view:

13b Where Negative impact has been Not Applicable identified please explain what action you will take to mitigate this. If no action is to be taken please explain your reasoning.

Age Dependants/caring responsibilities Disability Gender Race Religious Belief Transgender or transsexual Sexual Orientation

Page No 24

Page 278

14a How could this policy/project impact on relationships YES NO Please and attitudes between different groups of people? Could X explain. this impact be negative? Through controlling problems associated with nuisance dogs, this should lead to improved use of public places for recreation, having a positive impact on community cohesion. 14b What action will you take to mitigate any negative impact or to promote equality and good relations?

15a In relation to each of the groups, is there any areas where you are unsure about the impact and more information is needed? No.

15b. How are you going together this information? Not Applicable

16a As a result of this YES NO Please 16b Date on which the assessment is a Full Impact X explain your Full assessment to be assessment necessary answer: A started: wide Not Applicable consultation process has been used as part of the policy setting process and there has been no indication as to the need for a full impact assessment.

Page 279 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 280 Agenda Item 23

COUNCIL

Update on Actions from Council

Report of the Borough Solicitor

Portfolio Holder : Various

2 February 2011

Officer Contact : Liz Frier Ext. 4728

Purpose of Report This report provides feedback to the Council on actions taken on the following motions at the Council meeting on 15 th December 2010, and copies of letters received in response to actions taking following Council meetings prior to 15 th December 2010: • Comprehensive Spending Review • GMP Funding • Postal Vote System

Executive Summary Please see above.

Recommendations The report be noted.

Page 281

Council 2 February 2011

Update on Actions from Council

1 Background

1.1 The report sets out the actions officers have taken on motions of outstanding business and notices of motion approved at the Council meeting on 15 th December 2010

2 Current Position

2.1 The current position is set out in the tables in appendix one.

3 Options/Alternatives

3.1 N/A

4 Preferred Option

4.1 N/A

5 Consultation

5.1 [N/A

6 Financial Implications

6.1 N/A

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 N/A

8 Human Resources Comments

8.1 N/A

9 Risk Assessments

9.1 N/A

10 IT Implications

10.1 N/A

11 Property Implications

11.1 N/A

nd Page 2 of 4 Update onPage Actions 282 from Council 2 February 2011

12 Procurement Implications

12.1 N/A

13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

13.1 N/A

14 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

14.1 N/A

15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

15.1 N/A

16 Key Decision

16.1 No

17 Forward Plan Reference

17.1 N/A

18 Background Papers

19 Appendices

19.1 Appendix 1 – actions taken following the Council meeting on the 15 th December 2010 19.2 Appendix 2 – Letters received in response to actions taking following Council meetings prior to 15 th December 2010.

nd Page 3 of 4 Update on ActionsPage from 283Council 2 February 2011 Actions to be taken following the Council meeting on December th 15 2010.

SUBJECT DECISION RESPONSIBLE RESPONSE OFFICER(S) RECEIVED OUTSTANDING That this Council: Letter sent January BUSINESS FROM 2011 to Rt Hon 1. Enlists the support of our Members of Parliament in continuing to pursue THE LAST Theresa May MP, MEETING adequate Government funding for the Greater Manchester Police Force; and Home Secretary th Page 284 15 December 2. Instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Government Minister responsible 2010 to bring to his attention the concerns of Oldham Council. NOTICE OF 1. That the Council write to the Boroughs MP’s seeking their support for Letters sent January MOTION amendment of the postal vote system to introduce a set of eligibility criteria. 2011 to MPs and The 15 th December Electoral Commission 2010 2. That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Electoral Commission seeking a review of the postal vote system and the introduction of a set of eligibility criteria for applicants.

NOTICE OF That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Chancellor of the Letter sent January MOTION Exchequer welcoming the new financial freedoms announced within the 2011 to Rt. Hon. 15 th December Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). George Osborne MP, 2010 Chancellor of the Exchequer

Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 292