Minutes of Public Meeting held at the Longfield Suite to discuss its future.

(Date of meeting: 5 November 2009 at 7pm)

Officials present: Cllr Bibby (head of Bury Council) and his assistant Mike Kelly; Donal O' Hanlon (Lib Cllr for St Mary's ward); Steve Wright( Lib dem Cllr for Sedgley); Pilkington, Con Cllr Park Ward.

Minutes taken by: Alf Wentworth

Michelle Wiseman (Con Cllr Bury South); Vic D'Albert ( Lib Dem Cllr and chair of the meeting); Ivan Lewis(labour MP for Bury South)

The meeting started promptly at 7.pm and in introducing Cllr Bibby, Vic d'Albert informed the meeting that Cllr Bibby was only prepared to stay for 45 minutes.
He thanked the meeting for the invitation and said that he would have attended the previous meeting had he been invited.

Councillor Bibby reading from prepared notes, outlined the council's financial commitments against which the review of the Civic Facilities must be seen:

The Revenue Budget was £137,000,000 with 60% "ring fenced", leaving little room for financial manoeuvre.

Other key points:
a) Statuary requirements must come first
b) The recession had had an effect
c) Further big savings would be necessary
d) Subject to central government imposed conditions (for which Bury had been praised)

All this led to the dilemma; should he sell off the "family silver" or review those services that were losing money.

He then went on to refute the alleged decision to close the Longfield Suite and went on to say that he had been very disappointed by the press coverage, which implied that the Longfield Suite had been singled out. His answer was that there were no firm proposal Longfield Suite and the only action that had been taken was to set up a "task group" with the following terms of reference:

"That as a part of the review process to hear from local communities"
He stressed however that ALL the venues are under used, and that this had been badly reported. He summarised the problem for the civic facilities:
They are all 30 years old and are subject to 3 key pressures:
a) Falling income
b) Falling usage
c) No capital investment
The shortfall was currently £600,000 /annum (for all four sites combined) and after 22 years of Labour administration, there had been no capital investment.

At this point in the meeting (7.20 pm) there was considerable disturbance from the floor on the grounds that the meeting had expected him to answer questions submitted from the floor (he was due to leave at 7. 45 pm). He replied that it was important to outline the financial background, and that is what he wanted to do.)

After intervention by Cllr d'Albert the meeting continued with a series of questions and statements from the floor with Cllr Bibby failing to respond to several of them.

QUESTIONS / STATEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR

1. A member of the audience asked why Prestwich and Radcliffe had in general been "allowed to rot".

2. Statement by Alan Turner of Dance Club 2000 (Sunday night at the Longfield Suite).

a) The Tory Cllr Michelle Wiseman who had attended last Sunday's dance as an observer had reported back to the council that it was full of "non Prestwich people " (with the implication that Bury ratepayers were subsidising them).

b) The Longfield Suite is a Flagship site. It is full booked until 2011. Compare this with the Elizabethan Suite (least utilised, loosing £200,000 per year according to Council figures): on which £200,000 is to be spent, but is losing that same amount each year.

c. Unless we get an assurance on the Longfield Suite, we will appeal at the highest level even taking it to David Cameron if necessary, and thought that Cllr Bibby could lose his seat over the issue.

These statements were roundly applauded. C'llr Bibby made no comment.

3. C'llr Vic d'Albert asked C'llr Bibby: Why not close the Elizabethan Suite? - it is loosing the most money and is used the least.

After a long pause, C'llr Bibby replied, "I repeat there are no "plans"; if the Longfield Suite is viable it will remain open.

4: Can you comment on the council recommendations that Prestwich and Radcliffe (Civic sites?) will be reconfigured?

Answer: The minutes of the executive (involving all three parties) had said that, but the idea that we are against Prestwich is rubbish.

5: This is a good turn out (nearly 300) considering that it is bonfire night. The Longfield Suite is heavily used and we want a proposal for the Longfield Suite on how to fill it, not to close it.

There was no reply from C'llr Bibby.

6: The figure of £130,000 loss needs to be justified (submitted by Walter Pennington)

There was no reply from C'llr Bibby.

8 With reference to the 30% usage (of Longfield Suite?), exactly how is it calculated?

There was no reply from C'llr Bibby.

At this point C'llr Bibby remarked that he was pleased to see so many people at the meeting, and once again stated that if it can be proved that it is viable then there is no reason to close the Longfield Suite.

At this point the Labour MP Ian Lewis arrived (delayed by his ministerial duties) and began by thanking C'llr Bibby for attending.

9. (Ivan Lewis then made reference to the accounts saying that the Council are unwilling to put these in context, and a subsidy should be considered. Bury had no respect for other boroughs and he urged a referendum.

(One person one vote) asking the people what they want.

Answer: C'llr Bibby replied that there is no money but once again stated that if sites prove viable, they will not be closed.

10. Donal O'Hanlon ( lib c'llr for St Mary's Ward) made the following important statement:
He said that he had the right to see (accountancy) figures specific to the Longfield Suite. He had made a written request for these but had not received a reply.

Answer: C'llr Bibby gave him an assurance that he would make the figures available to him.

At this point Joe Burnstein who runs a Performance Arts school (Class Act) at the Longfield Suite asked if she could give a demonstration of the kind of civic activity that takes place at the Longfield Suite.

C'llr Bibby then left the platform without comment, but remained in the bar area during the performance, which consisted of a dance routine (on the stage) by an eager and energetic group of young girls.

C'llr Bibby left the building to boos and heckling (at approx 7.45) without applauding the performance or thanking the public for attending.

The meeting continued without C'llr Bibbby.

Labour MP Ivan Lewis began this phase of the meeting, posing the question "where do we go from here?".. He went on to suggest that we might start by C'llr's asking Bibby to justify some of the figures used in connection with the Civic facilities; eg: 12% utilisation at Radcliffe.

C'llr d'Albert agreed that the figures are very suspect; 33% of all bookings are from Longfield Suite.

Q (from the floor) Can you find out who will be on the "task & finish group".

C'llr d'Albert replied that it will consist of non elected officers and they will keep elected councillors out of the process until the last minute.

At this point Kevin Hodges campaign organiser from SaveOurSuite.com held up a document that he had obtained after much effort under the freedom of information act. It had taken 12 months to obtain it.

He drew the meeting's attention to the large areas that had been covered up on the grounds that they were "commercially sensitive". He informed the meeting that he the Council have no right to with hold any financial information under the terms of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and all Bury residents and businesses are entitled to see this information. He explained Councils would try to hide information under Section 43 (commercially sensitive) of the Freedom of information Act.

C'llr Vic d'Albert: Volunteers are required for the next part of the campaign.

A member of the public reminded the meeting of the very special nature of ballroom.

David Curtis (ex Longfield Suite Manager) said that when he took it over 14 years ago renovation did not cost very much.

The Longfield Suite is very important; it caters for a wide age range in its civic provision; from 2 to 72! he did not understand the £138,000 loss figure. This year the Longfield Suite made money. He thought that the Council were playing with the figures.

There was a suggestion from the floor for a "fighting fund" . Each individual should give £5, and in principal we could raise £250,000 to buy the services of a top solicitor. We must have that degree of dedication.

Another speaker referred to "Cultural Capital" , but this is nothing to do with accountancy.
He thought that C'llr Bibby was "a parody" of the kind of person who should be making decisions involving such concepts.

Another speaker said we had to fight for the Longfield Suite; it is the only civic facility that we have. We don't have a swimming pool for example.

Thanks were expressed for the considerable amount of effort put into the campaign by Kevin and Christine Hodges and Allan Turner.

Ivan Lewis MP told the meeting that they are trying to ban him from all council run events.

What is the next step? How are we going to apply pressure? It must be an "all party" effort.
Reference was made to the Policy Document; it showed that if the Longfield Suite were demolished, it could not be replaced with anything like the same size.

Allan Turner said that dance club 2000 will see it through.

The meeting ended at approx 8.15 pm. 260 chairs were provided and almost all of them were occupied plus approximately 50 people standing

An attendance of approximately 300 would be a fair estimate.

Action: C'llr Donal O'hanlon to obtain figures specific to the Longfield Suite (see item 10)

Effort must be put in to taking the campaign forward.

More volunteers are needed.

| Home |..| About Us |..| Have Your Say |..| Video Booth |..| Your Comments |..| Links |