Empire-building by the back door

I always understood that councillors were supposed to address the concerns of the people they represent. In this case I feel they have failed abysmally.

One councillor, from the Moorside area, during a telephone conversation in May last year, led me to believe that we (the residents) could count on his full backing for our objections to the proposed extension plans. Eight months later, after being co-opted onto the planning committee, this same councillor actually proposed the application be granted and gave his full support. His change of heart makes me question his suitability to represent us.

Bury Council own this green belt and recreational land at Clarence Park, on behalf of the people of Bury. Surely this vested interest should have been declared and an impartial body appointed to make the decision for them. In addition, I have been told that councillors hold meetings in this building, so their neutrality is further in question.

Does Age Concern pay appropriate council tax on a building which will soon cover an area equivalent to four bungalows? Also, is this prime green belt being sold, or leased, to Age Concern? If it is the former then the electorate should have been informed, and if the latter, then has the local authority been suitably reimbursed for such a privileged location?

I would like to return to the questions I put in my previous letter.

Do the councillors really know the membership of the facility? Most of those using it arrive by transport; very few are from the surrounding neighbourhood. At times, the facility appears to be catering for only a handful of people and I understand that some elderly people in a nearby establishment no longer wish to attend.

Does this mean that only a minority are benefiting and the extension is not really necessary? Would I be correct in thinking that it is Beryl Pilkington's intention to transfer all the Age Concern business from nearer the town centre to the Mosley Avenue site. If so, that hardly constitutes "recreational" use!

Are Age Concern in a position to finance the upkeep of this building without "letting out" the facility in future, causing even more disruption in the area?

Another question is about the trees. Are they not covered by a preservation order?

Clarence Lido is an important facility and this decision has far wider implications than just for the residents of nearby Mosley Avenue and Milner Avenue. People from far and wide have fond memories of Clarence Park and the Lido area. I feel sure that when they realise the extent to which Age Concern intend to alter things they will be disappointed that something so natural and unspoilt has been taken away from us.

Not only is the building to almost double in size but vehicle access is to be provided. Surely the existing car park nearby provides ample space, especially for the large Age Concern vehicles which cause such chaos for residents. No-one resents the disabled parking, but surely the able-bodied could have more consideration.

Bury Council seem over eager to accommodate the demands of this organisation and seem to have given little thought to the disruption caused to residents. Also, perhaps they would like to explain why local youngsters are being told that the Lido is not a play area, when generations of children - some of whom are now probably old enough to be Age Concern members - have been able to enjoy this area as their right. The attitude of those involved is sending out the wrong message and causing resentment.

I wonder if the planning committee realise just how deeply this resentment is felt, and just how widespread. No matter how they word it, this is still a green belt and parkland - and Age Concern is still an organisation catering for a minority and running a "business" in a residential area. A small meeting place for the elderly? I don't think so. This is more like empire building via the back door.

Roll on voting day!

AUDREY SCHOFIELD,

Mosley Avenue,

Bury.