A good idea, but can it work?

This new departure is very good news for the many community-minded volunteers across the borough, and the handful of covertly sympathetic council employees, who have argued and fought hard for such a cultural and practical shift whenever and wherever they could within the limited area opened to us and from within our own local communities.

As confessed by leader of the council, John Byrne, at the launching of the Strategy, the drafting of the document has been a steep learning curve for the council as it had to listen to what people had to say and then go back to the drawing board. But as stated by Carolyn Wilkins, head of corporate and policy research, this document is "only the beginning" and not the end of the process. The big challenge now is how is this vision going to be translated into reality.

The first question that comes to mind is this: in which way are some of Bury Council key relevant services, financial and human resources going to be devolved away from our highly centralised and bureaucratic town hall down to local communities and neighbourhoods? How are housing, education and social services going to be turned outwards, devolved downwards and made locally accountable? How exactly are the lives of the thousands of our poorest and socially excluded citizens surviving on benefits or the minimum wage and living in these "pockets of deprivation" (Community Strategy, p6) within the borough actually going to be improved through the implementation of these new policies? Where are the new and considerable resources in community development and community capacity building needed to rebuild these communities and alleviate poverty going to come from? And by which new mechanism are people actually going to be "empowered to participate in decision making"? (Community Strategy, p8).

Area boards have been mentioned but these 24-strong bodies are entirely made up of elected members, their co-opted partners from statutory agencies and a handful of other co-opted members from community groups. Furthermore, only elected members are apparently legally entitled to vote on small grant applications from the community chest.

The role of area boards is to "provide a link between local people and council services and strategies" (Bury East Local Community Plan 2001-2004, p6). They are, therefore, purely consultative bodies and not designed to "empower people to participate in decision-making" (Community Strategy, p8).

So, if these top-down consultative area boards were indeed seen as the means of delivery of our Community Strategy, their aims, size, organisational structure, composition, financing and mode of operation will have to be turned completely upside down.

My view is that this will not happen: not until Cabinet members and the majority of councillors face up to their responsibilities towards all those thousands of excluded and disenfranchised people living in our many unacceptable and appalling pockets of social deprivation within the borough; not until the same suffering communities are given the resources and support they deserve to build up their strength and confidence; and not until they are given the opportunity to elect their own people at neighbourhood level and empowered to make decisions they feel appropriate to improve the quality of life of their own neighbourhood.

That is indeed the challenge ahead over the next couple of years for all those committed to the implementation of this new "Vision for Bury". Whether you are a union member and council employee, an elected member, a representative from one of the statutory agencies, such as the police, health service or educational establishments, a member of a voluntary organisation or tenants and residents association, a member of community groups or community activist, that is the challenge that will have to be addressed if this Community Strategy is to make a difference in real, practical terms on the ground.

NICOLE IVANOFF