| RTNM.662 | There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting. |
| RTNM.663 | Mr Shea, a resident of Walmersley, explained that he had been in attendance at the November meeting of the Township Forum. Mr Shea stated that in his opinion the Minutes of the meeting did not provide an accurate or complete record and asked that the following statements be included;
Mr Shea stated that he felt that the following changes should be included as this would reflect discussions at the meeting: Councillor Gunther as Chair of the Forum agreed for the following statement from Mr Shea to be recorded verbatim;
With regards to Minute number RTNM.498
First Paragraph should read:
‘A representative from the Planning Department was available at the meeting to make a statement regarding the Strategy, to comment on points raised by the Councillors during the Forum session and to take away such comment or questions of the public for inclusion within the consultation information, which were individually expressed after the end of and closure of the forum session’.
Last paragraph should read:
‘A number of those present at the Meeting had questions regarding the strategy but these were not taken or allowed during the forum although the Chair afterwards conceded that these should be individually noted and incorporated within the Minutes of the Meeting’.
Mr Shea asked that the following statement also be included:-
‘Mr Roger Shea questioned why the Draft Document incorrectly refers to the Gin Hall site as being a brownfield. Mr Shea stated that the site had not previously been developed and is Greenfield. Mr Wiggins replied “it is a mistake”’.
|
| RTNM.664 | Mr Shea explained that following the last meeting of the Township Forum he had e-mailed the Chief Executive of the Council on the 23 November and had received no response. This had then been followed up by a letter which was sent on 20 December. Mr Shea explained that he had requested that the consultation period be extended.
Councillor Gunther explained that discussions had been held with senior officers of the Council following the November meeting of the Forum.
Councillor Gunther explained that the Core Strategy was an item on the agenda for this meeting and that all concerns raised would be fed into the consultation.
|
| RTNM.665 | Mike Owen, Executive Director of Resources and Councillor Isherwood (Cabinet Member for Resources) attended the meeting to give a presentation on the Council’s Plan for Change.
The meeting was updated on the Council’s anticipated financial settlement from central government and the proposals contained in the Plan for Change.
The Chair invited questions, comments and representations from the Councillors’ and members of the public present at the meeting:-
• Councillor Daly referred to the £820,000 that would be achieved through restructuring and vacant posts and asked how many employees would lose their jobs through this?
Councillor Isherwood explained that the majority of the saving would be made up of employees taking voluntary early retirement or severance and non filling of vacant posts. Mike Owen explained that there were also a number of senior management posts that were vacant and would be disestablished which would help add to the figure.
• Councillor Daly asked whether there were any hidden job losses within the document.
Councillor Isherwood stated that there were no hidden job losses and that all employees that were at risk had been told of the situation.
• Councillor Daly asked if the information was available and if the Conservative Group could have a copy of this information.
Councillor Isherwood confirmed that the information was available.
• Mr Green explained that he had recently read an Audit Commission report stating that there were £21 billion surplus in reserves and asked how much Bury Council had in reserves.
Mike Owen explained that the Council had a number of reserves which were dealt with in the golden rules. It was explained that reserves should never be used to fund services but should be used for one off schemes or purchases that will help to save money in the future - these were called ‘invest to save schemes’. It was also explained that by law, the Council had to keep a minimum of £4 million in the general reserves.
• Mr Green asked if the Council would employ consultants to carry out jobs following staff cuts.
Councillor Isherwood explained that the council had given a commitment not to privatise any services and if possible this would also mean not using consultants.
• Mr Green referred to the Council and the way that they procured goods and asked if they used the government scheme that was available.
Mike Owen explained that the Council used the Yorkshire Purchasing Consortium and the Government Procurement scheme that Mr Green had mentioned. Where possible the Council would always try to source the cheapest products possible.
• Mr Green referred to the future of the Tourist Information staff based at the Fusiliers’ Museum and asked why this service was being transferred to the Town Hall.
Mike Owen explained that this issue was still out to consultation so no decision had been made.
• Mrs Taylor referred to the news that the park ranger service would end and asked why keeping some of the service had not been an option.
Councillor Isherwood explained that this had been an extremely hard decision to make and the Labour administration was extremely proud of the way that parks had improved across the borough. The Council were looking at all services and there would be some hard decisions to make.
• Councillor Gartside referred to the number of vulnerable people in the borough who would still require statutory services and asked whether the it was likely that the Council would end up with an overspend again.
Councillor Isherwood explained that the authority was committed to delivering all of the services it could without creating an overspend. All services were being looked at for efficiencies and different ways of working as well as departmental restructures.
• Councillor Gartside asked what by what percentage the council tax could be raised without needing a referendum.
Councillor Isherwood stated that the figure would be 3 - 3.5%
• Councillor Wright explained that there were over 70 officers within the Council who earned over £60,000 and asked whether any top earners had been asked to take a pay cut.
Councillor Isherwood explained that there had been no pay rises in the past 3 years and increments had been frozen.
• Councillor Daly stated that he was aware of the difficult situation regarding the need to make cuts and stated that there were 167 officers who earned over £50,000. Councillor Daly asked, as Councillor Wright had, whether any of these officers had been considered for a fall in salary.
Councillor Isherwood stated that all options were being considered
|
| RTNM.666 | Dr Audrey Gibson and Dr Kiran Patel attended the meeting to give a presentation on Health and Well Being for Bury. The presentation outlined the structures for the Health and Well Being Board, Clinical Commissioning Group and Health Watch.
It was explained that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 had required the establishment of a Health and Well Being Board, a Clinical Commissioning Group and Healthwatch.
Every council would have a Health and Wellbeing Board, made up of key leaders from the health and care sector.
They will:
- Develop a strategy for the Bury Area
- Involve patients in decision making
- Influence and inform local commissioning of health services
- Involve local people in the development of the strategy for local health and social care services
Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Known as CCGs, these will take responsibility for commissioning (designing and purchasing) services across a town or region.
Bury’s CCG will be made up of all 33 GP Practices in Bury
They will:
- Engage with local people to improve health and wellbeing
- Work with Bury Council and other partners to improve health and wellbeing
- Ensure that a range of health services are available
- Ensure that monies are spent wisely
Health Watch
This new organisation will represent the needs and views of service users in the commissioning of health and social care services in Bury.
The aim is to give individuals and communities a stronger voice to influence and challenge how health and care services are provided within their locality.
The consultation for the local Health Watch has been conducted and the second phase was about to begin.
Questions, comments and representations were invited from members of the public present at the meeting:-
• Mr Green referred to issues surrounding care for the elderly when only a care home would do and stated that if you are not in receipt of benefits then you are on your own when it comes to arranging for this type of help.
• Mr Dyer stated that he had been a NHS worker for 35 years and that he welcomed the changes that were being made. Mr Dyer also referred to the ranger service which was being cut by the Council and stated that the CCG should consider commissioning the service as it would be a benefit to the health and wellbeing of the borough.
• Mr Booth referred to the story of Edna that was used in the presentation and asked if Edna were a Bury resident and she needed to go to A & E, which one would she go to.
Dr Gibson stated that she would go to Fairfield if A & E was required.
• Mr Booth asked whether there would be an A & E department at Fairfield Hospital in the future as there were a number of closures of departments across the Greater Manchester Area.
Dr Patel explained that the A & E at Fairfield Hospital would be championed and supported by local services and communities.
• A member of the public referred to the Marmot Review - ‘Fair Society, Healthy Lives’ and asked how the Health and Wellbeing Strategy would influence other strategies in the borough.
Dr Gibson explained that all other strategies would betaken into account and that work would be done with other agencies and departments.
• Mr Shea referred to the logos on the presentation and asked for clarification on the different organisations involved.
It was explained that there were many different partners involved including the Council, The CCG and the NHS Trusts and the voluntary sector. All of these partners were working together to ensure that the joint working was successful.
|
| RTNM.667 | Paul Allen, Head of Planning Policy and Projects and David Wiggins, Principal Planning Officer attended the meeting to update those present on the consultation responses to Bury’s Second Draft Publication Core Strategy.
Paul reported that the consultation on the Publication ran from 19 October to 30 November (although it was agreed to accept any comments received up to 17 December) during which time 376 representations had been received. Of the 376 submitted, 328 were in connection with the Gin Hall site.
Paul reported that the main areas of objection in relation to Gin Hall were:-
• The Council has failed to consult properly;
• The proposal will generate unacceptable levels of traffic;
• No evidence that it would reduce the level of out-commuting;
• Location next to a motorway is unsustainable;
- The site is within a residential area and its development would affect house prices;
• Other existing employment sites are being released for residential use e.g. Bevis Green and Spur petroleum;
• There are numerous existing vacant employment premises;
• Gin Hall is an important recreation and wildlife asset; and
• The scoring of the site in the Employment Land Review is inappropriate.
Other areas of objection included Housing, Green Belt/Other Protected Open Land, Employment, Retail, Protected Recreation, Renewable Energy and Duty to Co-operate.
There were also other issues that needed to be considered alongside the draft strategy and these were reported as:-
• New household projections are expected in March 2013. The implications of what are likely to be increased numbers needs to be considered;
• Measures have now commenced to revoke the NW Regional Strategy;
• The new Government guidance on Gypsies and Travellers (G&Ts) is now requiring Core Strategies to include figures for G&T provision.
Those present were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions and the following points were raised:-
• Changes to Council Tax will hopefully bring empty properties back into use. What is the Council doing in light of this?
It was explained that the affordable homes and empty property strategies were used as much as possible to bring empty properties back into use and to create affordable new homes. Bury was below the national average for empty properties with 3% of the 82,000 properties being empty.
• Mr Hill stated that the description of a quality site for employment land was at least 10 hectares but the Gin Hall site was considerably less than this. Mr Hill stated that he felt this made a mockery of the Plan.
• It was also stated that to maximise the Gin Hall site would mean utilising the area to the south of the site which used to be landfill. Who would pay for this area to be brought up to a standard where it could be used?
It was explained that if the site was included within the Plan and a developer did come forward to develop the site it would only be allowed under very special circumstances which would have to be identified at the time.
• A member of the public stated that the Gin Hall site was described as being 13 Hectares in size in the Plan. This must therefore include the area that was subject to land fill. Had the authority carried out any assessment as to whether the land was even suitable for development.
It was explained that it would be a developers responsibility to carry out any work required to make the site suitable for development.
• It was asked why the Council was always promoting the Gin Hall area for development when it had been given Green Belt status.
Paul explained that the Council had to consider any site that was identified and this site had been put forward by the owners. If it matched a developers requirements and they could show very special circumstances as to why it should be developed this would have to be considered.
•What were 'very special circumstances'?
If there were no other viable sites that met the requirements this may be considered but it would be up to the applicant to demonstrate.
• Mrs Greenhalgh referred to the objections, concerns and comments from local residents and asked if these were to be considered.
It was explained that all comments, concerns and objections would be included within the consultation document.
• Councillor Wright asked whether the fact that the Council would be collecting business rates in the future had anything to do with identifying Gin Hall for employment land as this would bring in extra revenue.
• How much employment land was currently available and standing empty at other sites across the borough? Park 66, Waterfold Park etc. There were also a number of new homes in The Rock development that were standing empty. Could the demand be proven?
• Councillor Daly stated that Councillor Campbell had referred to the inclusion of Gin Hall in the Plan as being a 'last resort' and asked what this meant.
It was explained that before a developer would be able to use the Gin Hall site all brownfield opportunities would have to be assessed. If a development could be accommodated on an alternative site then the alternative site would be promoted.
• Mr Shea explained that the Gin Hall site was originally put forward as a development site based on the premise that it was considered to be a brownfield site. This was invalid as the site is greenbelt and therefore there is no justification for it to be identified within the core strategy.
David Wiggins explained that the site was not identified on the basis of whether it was previously developed or not.
• Mr Green reported that there had been public consultation carried out when the Tetrosyl site was being considered for development. Members of the public were invited to post their views into comment boxes and were assured that all comments would be forwarded onto the relevant planning officers. At a later stage in the process it came to light that none of the objections had been passed on.
• Mr green also stated that at the same meeting there had been comments made that stated that building work should be carried out on the west side of Walmersley Road and not on the East side where Tetrosyl was.
• Councillor Daly proposed recording a show of hands from the public present and a vote from the Councillors present at the meeting.
The show of hands from the public recorded 27 in favour and 1 against.
Councillor Gunther asked all those present at the meeting if they were satisfied that they had had sufficient opportunity to comment on the Core Strategy.
All those present agreed that they had been given sufficient opportunity to comment and ask questions in relation to the Core Strategy.
|
| RTNM.668 | There were no questions asked by any of those present at the meeting. |
| RTNM.669 | It was reported that the next meeting of the Ramsbottom, Tottington and North Manor Township Forum would be held on 7 March 2013 at Ramsbottom Civic Hall at 7pm. |