SO, the legal fight to save Affetside Primary School is finally over. Alas, many issues remain unresolved.

What, for example, of the questionable conduct of Bury Council? Have they broken their own constitution by delegating the decision on school closures, with its financial implications, to the executive committee rather than deciding it in council ? If so, why? And on whose advice?

Moreover, exactly when is the surplus place problem to be properly tackled?

Affetside's successful small rural school was targeted for closure on grounds of empty seats, applying experimental, and no longer used, capacity measurements.

In the interests of equity, a word frequently used but not applied by some of our more vocal leading councillors, I remain perplexed that other primaries remain untouched, despite larger numerical surpluses. Why?

One school alone currently has a surplus of around 30 per cent with 84 spare places, and a reception year of only 28 children out of a possible 50, following a year-on-year downward trend. Councillor John Byrne will know which one I mean. Obviously regeneration doesn't mean repopulation.

In remaining primary schools with more than 25 per cent spare capacity (Councillor Steve Perkins' benchmark for action in his 2002 strategic review) there are still 526 spaces going begging. Much of this surplus is in the south of the borough which perhaps explains why Affetside's parents are struggling to place their children in over-subscribed schools in the north.

There is an interesting comparison with cash-strapped Salford where, incidentally, the council tax rise was lower than Bury.

Recently, Salford Council consulted extensively with those who know about education, teachers, parents and governors, in response to Ofsted's criticism of there being more than 1,700 surplus primary places. Initial suggestions included closure and amalgamation, as in Bury, but Salford's officers and elected members discovered that closing schools is not only unpopular but also educationally unsound. Additionally, the Government's new way of measuring capacity (net area capacity) has enabled them to immediately reduce surplus on paper by 1,000, which should keep the Audit Commission happy. They responded to proper consultation, working in a spirit of co-operation with schools and families across the city. They appear to understand the human impact of school closures, which goes to show that, where there's a will and a modicum of sensitivity, removal of surplus can be done acceptably.

Compare this to Bury, where families are being traumatised by unsuccessful appeals as they have to beg for their second choice school places.

With a large council tax increase, meaningless consultation, and a huge rise in councillors' expenses in "weak" Bury, such an approach raises serious management concerns, and questions of equity.

Perhaps people will think about this dismal failure in education policy at local election time, for in a representative democracy, whether they or their officers are at fault, it is elected members who must be accountable and take the flak.

DAWN ROBINSON-WALSH