PIMHOLE residents are demanding a public inquiry into Bury Council's decision to demolish their homes.

They say they are being driven out of their neighbourhood and high prices will make it impossible to move back.

They took their case to the town hall where councillors approved the compulsory purchase of 133 houses as part of an £11 million plan to regenerate the area.

"I've lived here for nigh on 70 years and, apart from doing the roads and changing the lights from gas to electric, you've given us 30 scrapyards and nothing else," said Mr Brian Fargher, who lives in Ingham Street.

"Now you're knocking it down and saying it's our fault, while the price you are giving us is peanuts. Where can I buy a decent terrace, modernised, with double glazing and central heating, for £45,000 in Bury?"

His son Simon Fargher, of Pimhole Residents Association, quoted the consultants' report which said that the majority of properties were sound. "Some were classed as unfit for minor faults such as the toilet or sink not being in the right place," he said. "The most economical option is to renovate them. This would still improve the area and provide good quality homes, not only for future residents but for current residents. Low cost housing should be retained, not destroyed."

And local resident Harry Reid added: "It really hurts me that some people in Pimhole are being treated like lords and ladies and the rest are told 'go, we will take your property'." He said the council was breaching human rights legislation, and urged members to use some common sense for the common people.'

But their pleas were rejected by members at Wednesday's executive. Council leader Wayne Campbell said: "The area needs regeneration, but regenerating an area is not just about pointing a house, you have to improve the whole area otherwise the problems are still there ten years down the line.

"A lot of lessons were learned in my ward (Radcliffe): major mistakes were made and money spent wrongly. You've got to look far deeper than just doing up properties, otherwise you're not giving people in the area a chance to have as good a quality of life as anyone else in the borough."

Coun John Byrne, executive member for environment and transport, said the council had already bought 61 of the properties and had reached agreement on a further 27.

"It might be the cheapest option to maintain the houses, but this is public money and it's not the most beneficial way. You have to look at the totality. We want to raise people's self-esteem, health and well being."

Alan Freer, borough environmental services officer, said the council had to make a balanced judgement. A range of plans were under way to improve the whole area for the next 30 years or more. He said that some people were relocating to houses in the area, helped by grants of up to £14,000 to help bridge the gap.

After the meeting, residents said they wouldcomplain to ministers, who have to approve the council's decision.