I READ with interest the letter from Terry Spencer (Ex-Labour voter, Jan 10).

Council leaders have had to accept the verdict of the Audit Commission's CPA assessment and we are getting on with the job of improvement. The Labour Group are constantly seeking to improve council services for the benefit of the whole community. But however much we accept our weaknesses we also feel genuinely aggrieved at some of the factors that led to the overall assessment of "weak".

How is it that the Government Office for the North West wrote to Bury MBC on December 5 confirming that the housing revenue account business plan had been awarded the second highest grading possible and then wrote again on December 10, stating that our housing strategy had been awarded the second highest rating in a band of five?

There is more than enough evidence to challenge that judgement.

In the last year our policies have reduced rent arrears by £72,453 and the time a property remains vacant before it is re-let has been reduced by ten days. The housing advice service has been awarded a Community Legal Service "Quality" mark; more funding has been obtained to support the neighbourhood wardens scheme, and the success of our homelessness strategy led to Bury obtaining the largest grant in the country. Also work has now started to clear outstanding repairs with a target to clear the backlog by April.

Just for the record, the introduction of the Tenants Participation Compact was postponed due only to conflict within the Tenants Federation which led to the Federation folding, and not to any weakness on the part of the council or its members.

Tenants are being widely consulted, not only on Stock Options, but also on many other matters and, as part of this consultation, members of TRACC and Bury Metro Tenants Panel were invited, by the council, to a meeting on January 8 to discuss a report due to go to the executive on January 15. The report was finalised on the Tuesday before and immediately posted to all those invited (incidentally at the same time it was sent to elected members). This was in advance of the meeting, therefore Mr Spencer is wrong to say access to the report was refused.

COUNCILLOR

R. A. WATTS