It’s my little brother’s birthday round about now – HAPPY B’DAY BRO - I still find it hard to think of him as being thirty something and not much younger!

Back at the community front, I’ve just caught the tail end of the Prestwich Youth Action group’s meeting. The young people have done a great piece of research to push for a skate and BMX bowl. Their ideas are spot on but selling it to the head of the parks dept., that they would dearly love to dig up an un-used and only – few – years - ago re-furbished bowling green, will be a bit of a challenge. I like their ideas, boldness and thoughtful considerations of alternative local options.

Love them or hate them - the summary of conversations we had about the new Wind Farm on Scout Moor, by members of the Economy, Environment and Transport Scrutiny Commission that I’m on at the Council. There’s an open weekend this weekend – personally I love seeing them on the landscape as I drive towards Bury.

We also explored a new policy on affordable housing – if developers are building a number of houses - some have to be affordable homes or for social housing. We were told that a major developer of has asked to build fewer in his development due to the rising cost of the whole project and credit crunch slow-down! This worries me – we’ve over 3 thousand people on social housing waiting lists and so very few are being built.

So later on the agenda, exploring the new Abandoned Homes Policy – I asked if the commuted Sum that developers pay to the Council for community amenities(I think this is known as section 106 monies) – could be used to legally cease abandoned homes and do them up – to be able to let them to people on Council housing waiting lists. Apparently it’s an option – but the process is costly and takes time to do it.

A sub-group of this committee that I’m on – exploring litter – At a previous meeting, I’d asked why PCSOs where I work fine our students £80 for dropping litter and in our area – they didn’t do litter enforcement. It was reported back that the reason that the PCSOs (Community Support Police Officers) cannot enforce litter fines is because the enforcement paperwork they’d issue – designed and printed by the Council – is the wrong size to fit in their uniform pocket!!!!! So it’s all being looked at again.

This statement follows the Full Council meeting of Wednesday, 10th September. It also follows on from a number of informal discussions Lib Dem Councillors have had with Council staff, Union officials and Officers since the results of the review were announced.

• Bury Liberal Democrat Council Group remain fully committed to ensuring a full, open and transparent continuation of the Job Evaluation / Equal Pay issue currently affecting Council staff.

• Bury Liberal Democrats are increasingly concerned that so many issues are outstanding, seemingly unresolved by Council Officers and the Conservative leadership. Too many questions remain about the fairness of the process. Liberal Democrats asked for a number of concessions at the Council meeting on September 10th. Lib Dems urged the Conservatives to allow employees a personal appeal. We believe that anything other than this will be an affront to employees’ rights. We continue to urge Bury Council to reverse the decision not to allow personal appeals, with immediate effect.

• There are persistent concerns being raised about the moderation process. We expect the council leadership to fully detail how the accuracy and reliability of the moderation process was prepared, monitored and audited. If the process is to be held as a fair and transparent process then staff need to know that the moderation applied was in itself monitored and checked. Those undertaking the moderation must independent of the process, to ensure that the outcome is fair across all Departments.

• We welcome the Leader’s commitment to re-training and to make vacant posts available to suitably qualified staff. We would like to see more formal commitment to this process by Council via the introduction of a Re-grading Register, from which applicants could be approached and designated funds put aside for re-training. Such a system would ensure that the mechanisms and funding are in place to aid job training and reallocation.

• Bury Liberal Democrat Group were dismayed and disappointed that the Labour Group walked out of the Full Council meeting on 10th September. It is our view that this (clearly planned and orchestrated) walkout was a stunt rather than a serious attempt to solve a major problem. By walking out of a debate on this issue, Labour abdicated their responsibility towards council staff as the main opposition to the leading group driving through the re-grading. Liberal Democrats will continue to provide the only serious, thoughtful opposition to the Conservatives, by ensuring that the process is handled as fairly and openly as possible.

• Labour’s walkout was a betrayal of the Council staff they claim to support. Their hot-headed actions ended debate and denied the opportunity for further questions. Labour’s absence from the meeting also meant that a debate on Radcliffe Riverside school did not take place, as the Labour Councilor due to ask the relevant question had left the meeting. The people of Radcliffe will rightly ask why Labour has let them down yet again.

• In response to a question from the Lib Dem Council Group, the leader of the Council agreed to hold a special briefing session for Council members. We welcome this initial response from the leader of the Council. We expect that the meeting should be held as soon as practicable. Representatives of the Union should be invited to attend.

• We acknowledge that this review came about due to national issues surrounding fair pay and that the Government instructed Councils to carry out a review following a job evaluation process and that review was carried out according to directives. However Bury Council is responsible to the people of Bury and its staff, and It is essential that staff are motivated to continue to provide the first class service its people expect to receive. The impact of this review on staff morale is a matter of great concern. Bury Council is in danger of losing some of its most experienced staff as a result of the way this review has been mishandled.

• Both Labour and the Conservatives must shoulder their share of the blame for the trauma now being faced by many staff. Labour were instrumental in establishing the process as directed by a Labour Government. And now with the review completed, the Conservative administration are responsible for implementing the conclusions in a manner that both safeguards council finances but also council services. More important than blame though, is that the Council comes together for the good of staff moving forward. Liberal Democrats feel that all parties are duty bound to explore every avenue in searching for ways to support staff who are likely to lose thousands of pounds in pay. At the Council meeting on September 10th Labour deserted staff whilst the Lib Dems secured concessions and more consideration from the Tories.

• The Lib Dems in Bury recognise the hard work and dedication of Bury Council staff, and will continue to do all within our powers to support staff through this difficult period.

Bury Liberal Democrat Group
September 11, 2008

The highlight of this week wasn’t an eye infection that kept me home-based with dark glasses for a day but Youth Cabinet at the Town Hall. This has really developed over the past few years due to the hard work of our young people, Youth Parliament representatives and positive participative youth practices. There was a really interesting debate over spending £80K, towards the shared cost of developing a professional recording studio at Bury Met Arts Centre. The young people at the meeting were concerned that the scope of the facility would only be for a limited number of young people with the greatest part of their budget. However, the spin off could be more youth concerts from the bands supported by the project, for young people. I found the whole meeting fabulously interesting, especially the enthusiasm and commitment of the young people, workers and council officers to make the cabinet successful.

This morning I went to the Heritage Open Days at two of our local Churches. Both had displays about their Churches as well as warm welcomes. I really enjoyed looking at the old maps of Sedgley at St Gabriel’s as well as old photos of the Church and activities and community events. It’s a fantastic archive. It was also wonderful to have some sun shine and get out in my garden for a few hours!

I’ve also been out with re-cycling calendars for folk who didn’t get one as well as do a spot of leafleting in St Mary’s Ward with Cllr Mary D’Albert. She’s passionate about the environment and Prestwich Clough so it was a good opportunity to catch up with things. Tomorrow is a visit to the Allotments and a Songs of Praise style of service at St Margaret’s with members of the congregation introducing their favourite hymns. I love a good sing so am looking forward to it – it will be a little different to the one Andrew will be at in Bournemouth!

Neighbours are worried at plans submitted to demolish a superb old house close to where we live and replace it with warden supported flats. The house has also been left to get very run down, which I often wonder whether is a ploy by developers to then get their plans through. But to knock it down also seems unfair and we’d loose another one-off Victorian house. There are also bats and wildlife to consider as the house has grounds and is next to allotments. However, the proposals are for warden supported living – something in short supply in our area. So this morning’s job is to scrutinise the plans to see how we feel and decide whether to object … to a large new development with difficult access which will replace a superb old building that cannot be replaced …but the replacement will be hugely beneficial to people who want to live independently but need warden support…. the proposals need careful consideration.

Our Council Housing Tenants are being consulted on changes to their Tenancy Agreements. It is great that the language and content are revised and updated to make their language more accessible and current to new legislation.

However, I have grave concerns over the poorly worded proposal (section 7) to remove property from persons who are in properties too large for their needs. This concerns many residents who have contacted me, too.

When estates were originally built, there was much more freedom of movement as families needed larger accommodation or towards sheltered housing for vulnerable and aged residents. If you look at the Bent Lane estate as an example, over half are now privately owned. The stock availability for freedom of movement of tenants between properties, is no longer there.

To expect an elderly or vulnerable person to be re-housed, forcibly, outside their area where they are familiar and where they have support networks and friendships is, I feel, possibly detrimental to health, causes unnecessary stress and is immoral.

If property as an alternative was offered, newly repaired with perhaps a new kitchen and tidy garden – with free removal and a redecorating grant - as an incentive for people to free-up larger properties, than that is different. As it gives people choice and support to down-size. Building more social housing an answer to reduced waiting lists not forcible re-housing of residents to smaller properties.

I contacted the Equality and Human rights Commission and they replied straight away – I am impressed but not with much good news – apparently public bodies can override the needs of an individual where there will be greater good for all ie building a road extensions and knocking down homes. At least that’s what I think they said as the reply was in legal terms. However, they advised me to seek legal advice re tenancy laws – so I’m onto that next.