Last week was Bury’s ‘Budget Council’ meeting. This is the important meeting of all 51 councillors to set the budget for 2022-23.

Budget Agreed
The budget which the Council agreed was as proposed by the Labour group, who form a majority on the Council at the moment.

This means that:
Council Tax will rise by just under 3%. This is 1.94% increase proposed by Bury Council and a further 1% ‘Social Care Precept’ to help pay for the money the Council spends on social care.

The new charges will be:

Bury Council’s total ‘revenue’ budget (ie day to day spending) is £177 million for 2022/23. The budget includes changes which have to happen recurrently (e.g. inflation, costs, increases of demand) of around £17 million and savings have had to be made of around £6 million for 2022-23. Importantly the Council is using reserves of £14 million this year to make the books balance, which can obviously only be done once.

The ‘capital’ budget – one off investment spending – includes very major spending on regeneration programmes in Bury town centre, in Radcliffe and also in Prestwich village centre. Worth noting that in 2022-23, the amount to be spent in Prestwich is £1.6 million, while the amount spent in Bury and Radcliffe is a whopping £62 million…..

In addition we have to pay smaller council tax bills to pay for the joint services which are under the control of the Greater Manchester Mayor. This consists of three separate charges – police, fire and ‘mayoral general’. These are rising by higher rates, which are 4.5% for police, 7.55% for fire and a 28% increase in the Mayoral General charge. The letter is to mostly pay for bus re-regulation, a process which starts in the next year.

What did the your Liberal Democrat councillors do?
We voted against the budget as a whole. Although there are some good things proposed, on balance we could not support such high rises in Council Tax when people are struggling with the cost of living, and are very worried about the high level of reserves which are being used.

We also proposed an amendment, to make different spending choices. This was:
– Money to help local businesses in Prestwich who are being affected by the end of leases in the Longfield and the expected demolition of the area.
– Investment in speed reduction initiatives in residential areas – some areas are crying out for measures to stop rat runs or speeding traffic.
– Introducing ‘no idling’ zones outside of all schools, to reduce the air pollution that builds up at the start and end of the school day.
– More help for people struggling with energy bills, specifically a larger team of energy advice workers who able to advise residents.
– Money to invest in cheaper and greener energy in our public buildings and council owned homes – e.g. replacing expensive and polluting oil boilers with green energy alternatives.

The amendment was defeated with all Labour and Conservative councillors voting against.

Papers for the whole budget are here.

North West ambulance service response times for the all types of incidents are getting longer, new Ambulance Service Statistics have revealed. 

The statistics, released from NHS England, show that average wait times for serious incidents have worsened in every region in England over the past month, failing to meet both the Category 1 and Category 2 callout times.

Locally, the statistics show that when comparing November to last month, ambulance wait times for the very worse incidents got fell by 3% with patients across the area being left to wait even longer when they called an ambulance.  

Very worryingly, urgent Category 2 callouts have worsened further with the average wait time in December of over an hour, this is 36% worse in December than it was in November. A category 2 call out is: “A serious condition, such as stroke or chest pain, which may require rapid assessment and/or urgent transport“

The NHS target for “Category 2” is 18 minutes, meaning almost all of the most urgent calls for ambulance services are being missed. 

Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to commission an investigation by the Care Quality Commission without further delay.

Responding to the new figures, Liberal Democrat Group Leader Councillor Michael Powell said:  

“It is disastrous that our local NHS services are under such severe pressure. We need real investment in our area with a plan from the Government. 

“The Government needs to step up and stop taking our area for granted. Health service wait times across the board are struggling, our local health staff are under immense pressure, and it looks like things are getting even worse.” 

NHS England’s Ambulance Quality Indicators, published on 13 January 2022, are available here.

These figures refer to Category 1 incidents: An immediate response to a life threatening condition, such as cardiac or respiratory arrest.

The NHS target is an average response time to these incidents of 7 minutes, and for 90% of them to be responded to within 15 minutes.

The NHS target for Category 2 is 18 minutes.

Last week was the regular full meeting of Bury Council. As usual your local team of Liberal Democrat councillors asked the maximum number of questions allowed, here are some of the highlights:

Number 96 Bus (to Heywood Road and Simister)
Councillor Steve Wright asked a question following the very poor service seen in recent weeks and months on the above service (regularly running behind time and sometimes not even going to Simister).
Q. Could the Council’s spokesperson on the Greater Manchester Transport Committee comment on the very poor service in recent months on the 96 subsidised bus service to Simister? What can be done to improve on the reliability of this service, and in particular stop any ’turning back’ before Simister by the operator?
A. This has been an ongoing problem over recent months, the reasons behind the problems are as follows:

• Residents/Pub goers are parking in the turning circle at the terminal point in Simister so services have not been able to turn there and have had to turn around at Parrenthorn School turning area
• Timing issues have caused delays, especially in the Prestwich area, causing the service to continually run late.
• Roadworks at present and recently on Heywood Road in Prestwich has further compounded the issues.
• The route was changed in 2020 to service Prestwich and Simister but this has not worked out due to heavy traffic and one lane traffic (due to cycle lane in Prestwich village). The route was also extended last year and very little time added to help with punctuality.What has/is being put in place:

• The temporary roadworks were due for completion on 3rd September.
• Targeted traffic enforcement.
• Service changes to make this a morereliable/punctual service.

Residents Parking Schemes
Councillor Michael Powell asked about the refusal of the Council to take forwards Residents Parking Scheme proposals. In two areas of Prestwich (Upper Wilton Street and Warwick Street) these have been triggered by residents, but the policy is not being implemented by the Council.
Q. Residents in the Warwick Street/Albion Mews and Upper Wilton Street areas of Prestwich have now been waiting for over a year for the Council to follow its own policy on the consideration of a residents only parking scheme, in both cases a policy triggered by resident requests. When will this process start in both areas?
A. Due to resourcing pressures in dealing with the ongoing pandemic, the Council will not be accepting any applications for new resident parking schemes until further notice. There are currently 12 resident parking schemes in effect across the borough containing over 6000 properties. We will review the position periodically, but there are no current plans to start on any new residents parking schemes.

Green Belt land lost in the the “Places for Everyone Plan”
Councillor Cristina Tegolo asked about the proportion of green belt land lost (or gained) in the Places for Everyone plan (the new name for GMSF).
Q. Could the Leader inform members of the net proportion of green belt land to be removed/added in each of the six townships of Bury, for the whole of Bury and for the whole of (the nine districts of) Greater Manchester under the Places for Everyone plan?
A. On a township basis, Places for Everyone is proposing net changes to the Green Belt as follows:

• Ramsbottom, Tottington and North Manor would see a reduction of 0.8%;
• Bury West would see an increase of 5.8%;
• Bury East would see an increase of 1.6%;
• Radcliffe would see a reduction of 10.6%;
• Whitefield and Unsworth would see a reduction of around 28.6%; and
• Prestwich would see a reduction of around 13.7%.

Formal consultation on the Greater Manchester ‘Places for Everywhere’ plan is now open for residents to have their say.

Every household in the borough of Bury will shortly receive a letter about the Places for Everyone proposals, with details of what it means for their local neighbourhood and how they can view and comment on the plans. The consultation period lasts until 3 October. 

Places for Everyone is very similar to the GMSF (Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) that received a huge number of objections over recent years. Now Stockport is not part of the plan, it has the new name of Places for Everyone. 

The plan proposes land for 165,000 more houses across Greater Manchester in the next 15 years. In Bury the plan would mean the loss of 1,700 hectares of precious green belt land (countryside). 

In what must win the award for false advertising, Greater Manchester’s councils have used the by-line ‘Protecting our Green Spaces’ on the consultation. They mustn’t be talking about Prestwich, Whitefield or Radcliffe, where some of the largest losses of green belt land are taking place.

At the recent Bury Council meeting, Liberal Democrat Councillors voted against these plans, but we were sadly outnumbered by the ruling Labour Group.

Now it is your chance to have your say. The plan is at its ‘publication stage’ and is the version of the plan that the nine participating local authorities intend to submit to the Government. People are being asked whether they think the plan has been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and meets the four ‘tests of soundness’ (as set out here: paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The Places for Everyone plan, plus supporting documents and background evidence, is on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority website at www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/placesforeveryone.

The plan is at its ‘publication stage’ and is the version of the plan that the nine participating local authorities intend to submit to the Government. People are being asked whether they think the plan has been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and meets the four ‘tests of soundness’ (as set out here: paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

Comments can be made via the online response form at www.gmconsult.org. Alternatively, you can download the response form available on the GMCA website and email it to placesforeveryone@greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk. 

You can also submit your comments by:

• Emailing placesforeveryone@greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk
• Writing to: The Planning and Housing Team, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Broadhurst House, 56 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6EU.

Once the period for making representations ends on 3 October, it is intended to submit the Publication version of Places for Everyone to the Government alongside all supporting evidence and comments made. Please note that it will only be comments that are made on this version of the plan that will be submitted to the Government.

The Government will then appoint a Planning Inspector to undertake an Examination of the plan. Their job is to examine whether the submitted plan meets the ‘tests of soundness’ and all the relevant legislative requirements.

Sadly, Bury’s Councillors agreed by a narrow margin to proceed with the ‘Places for Everywhere’ planning proposals. Liberal Democrat councillors voted against the proposals, but 26 Labour councillors voted in favour which was enough to win this time.

Places for Everyone is very similar to the GMSF (Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) that received a huge number of objections over recent years. Now Stockport is not part of the plan, it has the new name of Places for Everyone.

The plan proposes land for 165,000 more houses across Greater Manchester in the next 15 years. (To put that in context the whole of Bury added together currently has 77,000 houses.)

In Bury the plan would mean the loss of 1,700 hectares of precious green belt land (countryside).

The four big ‘sites’ for Bury are: 
– Prestwich/Simister/Bowlee – space for 1,550 new houses on what is now ‘green belt’ (it is farmland) to the north of Heaton Park (between Simister and Middleton). Plans include a new primary school. It is important to note that these proposals are slightly away from the existing Simister village (a small improvement on previous plans), but right up to existing homes on the Bowlee and Rhodes side.
– a major area of employment/industrial development to the north of the M62 between Prestwich/Whitefield and Middleton/Heywood. Essentially this is a large area on the north side of the M62 from Simister island to the Heywood/Middleton junction on the M62. Half is in Bury, half in Rochdale. This will provide space for 1.2million square metres of industrial and warehousing build, and 1,000 houses on the Rochdale side. 
– 3,500 new houses near Radcliffe on existing green belt land (large area of countryside around around Elton Reservoir)
– 1,400 new houses near Walshaw on existing green belt land. 

(The plan as it affects the Prestwich area – part of the massive employment/industrial area to the north of the M62, and 1550 homes to the north of Heaton Park. All of this is currently Green Belt land (countryside).

Liberal Democrat Councillors voted AGAINST the plan
We DO want more homes and more jobs, but NOT at the expense of destroying our countryside.
New building should be on existing brownfield sites and in town centres only.

Liberal Democrat Group Leader Councillor Michael Powell said:
“Places for Everyone is simply the wrong plan. The proposals will see 1,700 hectares of Bury’s precious green belt taken away and built on. Our green spaces are vitally important in so many ways, as we have particularly seen recently during the lockdown periods. We still don’t need to do this. There is enough brownfield land, or sites that can be developed by bringing life back into our town centres to provide for housing need. We do need more homes – especially the affordable homes that people need. We do need more jobs – but we need these to be the high quality jobs that people deserve. We also need our countryside, and the good health and life the this provides”.

You can watch Michael’s speech opposing the plans here:
https://fb.watch/73NCvbd_mY/

What happens now
Although this vote was very disappointing, the fight to save our green belt can still go on.

A further consultation on these final plans will commence across Greater Manchester (minus Stockport), apparently from early August. We will give you more information on how you can have your say as soon as we have the details.

Bury Council’s Cabinet met this week and agreed to close the Longfield Suite forever.

The eight Labour councillors who make up Bury Council’s Cabinet have voted to close Prestwich’s community facility, but keep open the other two facilities in Bury and Ramsbottom. There is a vague promise that community facilities will be a feature of a redeveloped village centre, whenever that happens.

The Longfield Suite was opened by the former Prestwich Borough Council in 1971, and is the largest of Bury’s civic venues with a capacity of 560. The other two civic venues in Bury (Ramsbottom Civic Hall and the Elizabethan Suite at the Town Hall) will be kept open.

A public consultation found that most people wanted to keep the civic venues open, however the Council sites that lose money and essential maintenance work needs to be undertaken. The sprung dance floor at the Longfield will, apparently, be retained for future use in a building (but no ideas when or where).

Liberal Democrat Group Leader Councillor Michael Powell said: “This is really disappointing. Everyone understands that the Longfield has been closed during Covid, but now we need community spaces more than ever. There is nothing similar that people can use in Prestwich or nearby.

We all agree that the village centre needs redevelopment, but we would have kept the Longfield Suite open while we’re waiting for that to happen (and we’ve been waiting 20 years!).

Once again Labour councillors have ignored public opinion and let Prestwich down while keeping facilities open in other parts of Bury”.

Last month was the regular full meeting of Bury Council. As always your local team of Liberal Democrat councillors asked our full quota of questions on local issues. Here are some of the more interesting issues raised:

Longfield War Memorial
Councillor Steve Wright asked about the Prestwich war memorials, which are currently out of public view because of the closure of the Longfield Suite:
Q – Now that it has been confirmed that there are no plans to reopen the Longfield Suite in Prestwich, can the Leader confirm what the plans are for rehousing the war memorial located in the Suite?
A –

A full and final decision has not yet been made, and residents are still able to contribute to the consultation survey and put forward their views. The consultation will continue to run until 17 March 2021, via the One Community website: – https://www.onecommunitybury.co.uk/burycouncil- civicvenuesfeedback

Following public consultation, all consultation feedback will be thoroughly analysed and considered. A report will be scheduled at Cabinet in early Summer in order for a final decision to be reached.

If a decision is reached at Cabinet to permanently close the Longfield Suite, alternative options will be explored to relocate the war memorial.

Potholes
Councillor Michael Powell asked about reports of Potholes:
Q: Could the Leader inform members on the number of reports made of potholes, in each of the last five years?
A:

The number of potholes reported in each of the last five financial years is as follows:
2015/16 – 2942
2016/17 – 2798
2017/18 – 4587
2018/19 – 2170
2019/20 – 2400
2020/21 – 1397 to date (09/03/2021).

The number of reported potholes has deceased by over 50% since 2017/18, which clearly demonstrates that our investment in highway maintenance through the Highway Investment Strategy is improving our road network.

Compensation
Following on from this, Councillor Cristina Tegolo asked about compensation from road users:
Q: Could the Leader inform members on the amount paid out by the authority, and the amount spent on legal costs, for compensation claims as a result of poor road and pavement surfaces, for the last five financial years?

A:

Metrolink Ticketing Options
Councillor Steve Wright asked about different ticketing options to suit people who are being asked to work more flexibly than before:
Q: Could the authority’s spokesperson on the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee inform members what steps TfGM is taking to facilitate more flexible working practices through ticketing options?
A:

TfGM currently control ticketing options for the Metrolink network only, with fares and ticketing on the bus and rail network controlled by their respective operators.
Operators and transport bodies including TfGM have been examining the case for more flexible ticketing options over the last few years, as changes to working patterns have become more evident. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated changes to working patterns, as employers and employees adapt to home working and alternative working patterns.

TfGM are working with bus and rail operators to support flexible ticketing initiatives where they can and in July last year launched Clipper, a carnet-style ticketing option for Metrolink. Customers benefit from a discount for travelling multiple days but can choose the days of travel across a number of weeks, providing greater flexibility for those who may have previously bought a traditional season ticket, but now travel less often.

Contactless payment on Metrolink also provides customers with the flexibility of only paying for the journeys they have already made, with fares calculated for them up to a daily cap.

Rail operator Northern also introduced a new flexible ticketing option in July 2020, providing ten unlimited travel days for the price of nine, to be used any time during a six-month period. The option was introduced after the first national lockdown, ahead of predicted changed to passenger travel patterns.

Waiting times for 101
Councillor Michael Powell asked about waiting times for people calling the Police non emergency number 101:
Q: Could the authority’s spokesperson on the Police and Crime Panel inform members on what the average wait time is for 101 calls to be answered in Greater Manchester, how does this compare to previous years and what proportion of calls hang up before being answered?
A:

The average waiting time for 101 calls over the last 12 months is 2 minutes and 53 seconds, which has seen a marginal improvement from the previous year.

The abandonment rates are slightly higher than the previous year at 27%. Whilst GMP are always striving for improvement when these results are considered in the context of Covid, it is a more understandable outcome.

Members will no doubt be aware that all public services have suffered from impacts to staffing through the Pandemic and the 101 service has been no different. With a need to prioritise calls to the 999 service there have been capacity issues over the last 12 months. However GMP report that the situation is now improving with recruitment of new staff a priority.

There continues to be a drive towards online facilities such as

Livechat facility, an online tool which is answered in about 16 seconds. This option continues to be used more and more by the public, which is positive.

Greater Manchester Police are also promoting their call-back service at peak times, where call-handlers will return calls for those assessed as low-risk to avoid people queuing – about half of the calls received and resolved at Switchboard relate to requests for updates on previously reported crimes.

The Police & Crime Panel will continue to scrutinise the work of the Call centre and I will provide further updates to Council in the future.

Full answers to all questions can be found here and here. Any questions please ask!