| WUTF.303 | No declarations were made in respect of the any items on the agenda.
|
| WUTF.305 | Inspector Kenny provided an update on the work of the Police and other community partners within the Whitefield and Unsworth area.
It was reported that there had been reductions in the numbers of domestic burglaries and thefts from motor vehicles and a significant drop in anti-social behaviour.
A coalition of key community partners were operating within the area and the partners were being co-ordinated by Kim Griffiths (Township Co-ordinator). Work had also been undertaken to set up a Youth PACT meeting which had attracted the attention of young people to take an active role. The issue of a new skate park in Whitefield was ongoing to determine a suitable location. A new facility had opened for young people on the Victoria Lane estate through the work of a local community group partnership involving local residents, Bury Council, Six Town Housing and the New Jerusalem Church. This would help to provide a location for activities and a place for young people to meet that was safe and warm instead of meeting on the street. So far the interest shown had been very encouraging.
The Police had also effectively used the internet to pass messages to communities in areas which have a suffered as crime ‘hotspots’.
The Chair then invited questions from the audience.
How many less cars are being broken into?
There were 5/6 less cars per week being broken into compared to last year. The reason for this could be that owners taking more care to lock their vehicles and not leave items of value on display.
There had been a meeting of the Friends of Whitefield and Unsworth Parks this afternoon but no one attended from the Youth PACT group. The time had been purposely arranged so they could attend. The Youth PACT members will be contacted and informed of this. It is important that they continue to attend and be involved.
|
| WUTF.306 | The last meeting of the Township Forum was attended by representatives from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and First Manchester to talk about the changes to bus services in Whitefield and Unsworth. It was reported that a further meeting had taken place to discuss the issues and concerns raised on the bus services for the area.
Councillor A Audin gave an update on what had happened at the meeting held on 6 August. The points raised at the Township Forum were put to First Manchester, these included the poor service provided on some of the existing routes and the withdrawal of and changes to services which had left sections of the community without their own transport effectively ‘cut off’. The point had been made for a regular service to allow people to visit the Morrisons shopping store in Whitefield and the local medical centre situated on Croft Lane in Pilsworth.
Bus services users were encouraged to keep writing and complaining to First Manchester as well as signing a petition that had been set up.
Mr Boden welcomed the activity that had taken place and asked if there would be a co-ordinated Greater Manchester wide response made to First Manchester and TfGM on the poor service that bus users were receiving.
A petition was passed to the Chair with the request that it be forwarded in the name of the Township Forum to First Manchester.
Councillor Bayley (Bury Council representative to the TfGM Committee) reported that this was a local issue and it would be unlikely that the petition would receive the attention required from the media due to the low number of signatures on the petition. Councillor Bayley added that changes to services had been made for the commute of people to and from Salford. The reality of the complaints made was that First Manchester had no interest in what passengers had to say. The petition would have little or no impact on the decisions made on services. Councillor Bayley suggested the most appropriate destination for the petition would be to submit it to the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee has elected representatives and officers from TfGM and representatives from each of the bus companies providing services in Greater Manchester. The public are welcome to attend and observe the proceedings and the presentation of a petition which highlighted the depth of feeling from bus users in Bury on the poor service provided by First Manchester may have a more positive outcome. The influence of TfGM and the elected representatives appointed to the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub-Committee to demand changes to services was very limited. The meeting of the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub Committee would be taking place on 5 October 2012, in Committee Room 11, Town Hall, Albert Square, Manchester at 10:30am.
Councillor Grimshaw suggested that a group of bus users also attend the meeting to support the handing over of the petition and asked for telephone numbers and email addresses of those who may be interested in taking part.
Councillor Bayley reported that the agenda for the meeting of the Council on 12 September 2012 included a notice of motion which highlighted the issue of continually rising bus fares and the reduced services provided by First Manchester Bus Company.
The Chair invited questions form the audience.
Question: Why do First Manchester bus drivers not scan or record a passenger’s bus ticket or pass when service users board the bus. This gives the impression that the bus service is under used which is not the case.
Response: Please write to First Manchester and TfGM to complain about this practice.
It was reported that parts of the petition being collected were located at various shops and public places in Whitefield and it was important to ensure these were put together with the main petition pack. The petition needed to be better co-ordinated if it was going to make an impact.
It was suggested that the collection of the petition be co-ordinated by the Township Co-ordinator in consultation with Councillor Bayley. Inspector Kenny reported that he would instruct PCSOs in Whitefield to locate and retrieve the petitions for collation.
The point was made that there was no reference on the petition to the 137 service or the impact of the changes on children and families.
|
| WUTF.307 | A presentation was given by Councillor Isherwood (Cabinet Member Finance and Resources) on the localisation of Council Tax Scheme Support. The Council currently administers a scheme, on behalf of the Government, for the provision of support with Council costs to people on low incomes. The Government is in the process of producing legislation to ‘localise’ the scheme as well as imposing a 10% reduction in the amount of funding it will provide to pay for such support. The consequence of this reduction will mean that Bury Council will lose up to £1.4 million per year.
The new scheme will be produced locally and will have some flexibility as well as central directives. There will be a fixed amount of money available to the Council and this would mean the costs would have to be absorbed to meet increases in claimant numbers. Pensioner claims will not be reduced and there will be one claim per household. This will be a means tested benefit. Any impact and cross over with Universal Credit was not yet clear.
The scheme will become operational on 1 April 2013 and the Council would need to have a scheme in place by 31 January 2013. The new scheme would also need to be properly advertised and to achieve this approval of the scheme by Council will take place in December. Failure to introduce a scheme would result in the Government imposing a scheme. The Consultation would take place between 4 September and 31 October.
Councillor Isherwood then explained:
- The options to protect other vulnerable groups
- The funding options
- Absorbing the costs of the changes
- The changes to Council Tax
- Amendments to the current scheme
- The options for consultation.
The Chair then invited questions and comments.
- The future demographic of Bury indicates a growing older population. Is there a contingency for this?
The Council will address this situation as it arises.
- The options for consultation involving the amendment of the scheme in respect of non-vulnerable working age claimants regarding the setting of a minimum level of £1 for collection due to cost should be reconsidered.
- One parent families with children that have reached five years old could suffer hardship because they would be required to find additional money to cover that has been stopped from the scheme.
- What is an uninhabitable property?
A property not fit to be lived in due to disrepair or being uncompleted.
- How does the council know about second properties or uninhabitable properties.
The Council has property inspectors to check.
|
| WUTF.308 | A presentation was given by Dr Audrey Gibson representing the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to explain its function within Bury and make up. The CCG’s role is to address the way localised patient services are commissioned within Bury. The Group is made up from each of the GP practices in the Borough and is governed within an agreed structure involving appointed representatives from key stakeholders. The CCG will replace Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts.
Councillor A Audin is a servicing Patient Cabinet Member.
The CCG is committed to be being an open and transparent organisation, although on some occasions the decisions it will make will be unpopular, service users will be fully informed. Consultation would take place before decisions were made.
It was intended to appoint a health representative to the Township Forum and involve Township Forums in the consultation processes to determine the services to be commissioned.
The point was made that providing information about issues in advance of a Township Forum meeting would be helpful in achieving a balanced and informed response to proposals from the CCG. This point was noted.
Dr Gibson was asked what ‘teeth’ the CCG had to fulfil its role. Dr Gibson explained that the CCG role was to inform the public and ensure the patients voice was heard within other forums. The CCG would have to satisfy certain criteria to show it had listened to demonstrate consultations were not just a ‘box ticking’ exercise. There were legal requirements to consult on major changes.
Dr Gibson was asked who was paid for their services to the CCG and it was reported that the Chair of the Patient Cabinet received payment and expenses were paid to the Cabinet Representatives.
|
| WUTF.309 | The meeting received an update on the issue of the War Memorial located at Stand Church. Following discussion at previous meetings of the Township Forum at which concerns were raised on the responsibility of maintaining the War Memorial if it should require maintenance or repair. Councillor FitzGerald reported that the Council would work towards a solution to ensure that war memorials within Bury would continue to be maintained.
|
| WUTF.310 | The Chair invited questions from the public present at the meeting on any matters relating to the work or performance of the Council or the Council’s Services.
- Could the Council carry out a review of double yellow lines around Hillingdon and Sedgley Park. The rugby ground is not as popular as it once was. Double yellow lines would be better on Old Hall Lane and Ringley Road. Councillor Jones reported that he would investigate the matter raised.
- How does the Council hold private contractors it appoints to account when they have carried out below standard work? The re-tarmacing of a public foot path at the rear of the Goats Gate Inn pub is sub standard in the sections which have been undertaken by non-Council workers.
- Does the Council have a policy on Japanese Knott Weed which grows on privately owned land? The plant is growing at the works entrance adjacent to the public footpath path on Radcliffe New Road. It was reported that the owner of the land has a responsibility to remove and destroy the plant before it encroaches onto neighbouring land.
- Could the Council look at the parking problems at Unsworth Pole? The yellow lines are deteriorating and need to be renewed. Drivers are parking their vehicles directly in front of the shops.
- Could the Council take action to stop the use of ‘A’ advertising boards which are positioned on the street and lamp post advertisements? Both were causing potential tripping and injury hazards.
|
| WUTF.311 | The Township Forum Co-ordinator circulated an update of the Township Forum’s Local Community Plan. The progress being made in completing the Plan was noted.
Alex Stacey was invited to tell the meeting what arrangements were in place for the Halloween Festival planned for Whitefield in October.
Alex informed the Township Forum that the event had been arranged to take place during half term week starting on 20 October. A variety of events had been planned including:
- Medieval Monsters
- Horror writing seminar
- Festival in the Goats Gate Inn car park
- A walking dragon
- Birds of Prey display
- Tarot workshop
- Dance workshop
- Séance
- Paranormal investigation talk
- Films in the White Room and quiz
- Chefs ‘cook off’
Mrs Marshall informed the meeting that a lights festival would also be taking place at All Saints Church and all are welcome to attend.
|
| WUTF.312 | A report by the Bury Council Programme Support Officer was submitted updating the Township Forum on the allocation of the £1000 funds for each ward to support the work of voluntary and community groups.
|