ELittle

Last updated 01:00, Friday, 13 April 2007

LETTER to Ms Maggie Chadwick, Chair, Cumbria Primary Care Trust Board:

Following the press release from the Cumbria Primary Care Trust (PCT) on April 4 and the Cumbria Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee report, we are writing as a group of parents affected by the proposed closure of Orton Lea Respite Centre in Carlisle, as some of the facts given are inaccurate and untrue.

It has been stated that it is not cost effective as only 21 children use it for day or overnight respite care.

The reason for this is that many parents have made alternative arrangements as the rumours about closure have been around now for at least three years.

During this time the service has been run down and parents didn’t want to be left without anything. Also, no new children have been referred to the service.

The press release said parents had already accepted alternative respite services. This is not the case as parents have been offered, but not necessarily accepted, alternative care.

It also said that five remaining families were being worked with to arrange alternative care; once again this is untrue.

Also, in your report at point 3.19, it states that only four children are under urgent consideration.

How urgently are you treating this, as some parents have not even been spoken to yet?

A representative from Children’s Services said on the television that parents wanted a more flexible service, implying that Orton Lea wasn’t flexible and it wasn’t what parents wanted; we have yet to speak to any parents who hold this view.

Given the choice, what parent would leave their precious child with an inexperienced and unqualified family, ie shared care, or isolated with a carer funded by direct payments when they have been using a service with highly trained and committed staff where their children can socialise with their peers and become more independent and have a base from which to operate where medical conditions, training programmes or inclement weather can be accommodated?

For those who still want to have the type of service that Orton Lea offers, Huntley Avenue at Penrith is the nearest centre, and it is going to become too full to accept all children from Orton Lea. Also it has no provision for under eights and only offers limited day care.

Why don’t you save yourselves the embarrassment of closing a relatively new purpose-built unit and make it cost effective and fully operational by expanding it as a centre that everyone can be proud of?

Great advances have been made in medical science that allow many more children to have a chance of life so we think it’s about time you looked seriously at supporting them and their families during their lives.

IAN AND SARAH MATTOCK(On behalf of parents with children using Orton Lea)StanwixCarlisle

WE, AS CHURCH leaders in Carlisle, want to make it clear that support for a racist organisation is not compatible with faithfulness to Christian teaching.

This is the publicly declared view of all Christian denominations in our land.

The BNP is demonstrably a racist organisation because it seeks to divide our communities on the basis of ethnicity.

Therefore we as Christians call on the people of Carlisle to do two things: to use their votes – as all good citizens should; and – by voting for other candidates – to deny the BNP candidates any political legitimacy.

Alan Meyer, St Paul’s Elim Church; Alun Jones, St Herbert’s, Currock; Ben Phillips, Vicar, St Michael’s, Stanwix; David Hasson, Superintendent, Carlisle Methodist Circuit; David Thomson, Archdeacon of Carlisle; Greg Turner, Parish Priest, Our Lady and St Joseph’s, Carlisle; John Libby, Vicar, St James, Denton Holme; Karl Wray, Vicar, St Luke’s, Morton; Kevin McStay, Pray for the City; Mark Boyling, Dean, Carlisle Cathedral; Mel Robinson, Captain, Salvation Army Carlisle Temple Corps; Richard Pratt, Priest in Charge, St Cuthbert’s, Carlisle; Robert Sheard, Minister, St George’s United Reformed Church

ONE of the great things about people highlighting their problems within the pages of this newspaper is that readers can write back and offer solutions to these problems.

Firstly, Eric Martlew, MP wants more information on the proposed 600 demolitions in Botcherby (The Cumberland News, April 6).

Now, he knows from experience of the Morton Park demolitions that he won’t be given the correct answers, so why ask?

A second story, “Homelessness is where the Heartache is”, in your sister paper the News & Star on April 7, featured a conference by Shelter and Cumbria County Council highlighting the hardships of homeless people trying to gain access to social housing.

What amazes me is that all these influential people failed to highlight the government’s new scheme that is to be enforced on all registered social landlords (RSLS), that is the “choice based lettings scheme” (CBL).

Under this scheme all RSLs will have to advertise all their empty properties in the local newspapers.

Impact Housing Association put a full page advert in last Thursday’s News & Star explaining its approach, and that anybody wishing to live in a particular property will be able to apply for it.

If a property is continually advertised then people know that it must be available and nobody else wants it, and obtaining it should become easy.

This should help the homeless, and Shelter and the county and city councils should be monitoring it.

Mr Martlew on the other hand could monitor how many of the boarded up properties on the Botcherby estate (over a dozen on Botcherby Avenue alone) and anywhere else he has an interest, are not advertised.

Mr Martlew should also be asking the city council why it is not taking over hundreds of empty or abandoned houses in the city with its given powers under the 2004 Housing Act and then re-letting them to the homeless.

The city council should be using some of the £14m it has recently obtained from Carlisle Housing Association from the sale of houses under the “right to buy” scheme – the only real “affordable housing” scheme, which is now being done away with by Mr Martlew’s government.

DAVID YOUNGChair, Carlisle & Rural Tenants FederationMorton ParkCarlisle

WE ARE residents in the Harker area to the north side of Carlisle.

We have just heard of the proposal to develop a waste recycling centre on the old RAF base at Low Harker.

There has been no direct communication with local residents about this proposal and the Your Cumbria magazine delivered to our house this morning is equally silent on the matter.

Until four days ago (at the time of writing) our city councillor was completely unaware of the proposal and only this morning two city council staff working in recycling also told us that they knew nothing of the proposal.

The documents we have now managed to access from the website are not specific as to the operation of the proposed site.

What would be its operational hours? Would it be a depot for onward shipment of water materials, and/or would these materials be processed on site?

In either case there are several specific matters of concern to us arising from the proposed use of the Harker site.

1. Traffic. Specifically, the access road is narrow and has no footpath. This road is the only way residents in our part of Harker can reach the transport routes into the city. It is dangerous enough jousting on the road with the current traffic, let alone with the thousands of additional lorry journeys along the road if the current proposal were adopted.

2. Noise.

3. Dust and other airborne particulates; also possible gaseous matter including methane.

4. Odour.

5. Vermin.

In addition, the detrimental effect of the closure of the current successful local businesses on the site.

We understand that if we object to the current proposal (clearly we do, and not least to the covert way in which the proposal seems to have been brought forward), we are supposed to suggest (an) alternative site(s). It is unreasonable to expect private citizens to have the necessary information and insight to be able to do this; but the obvious local alternative is at Hespin Wood.

It is already in use as a waste disposal site; it is roughly eight times the size of the Harker site; there are few if any private residences in the immediate vicinity, unlike at Harker; it already has appropriate screening; and it has good access.

Tim and Carol MarshallJohn and Dorothy Brown ; Agnes Haynes; C Pearson; M and B Tweedale; OS Tweedale; T Grubb; CWS, AME, NJ and C Batey; J Witherington; I and M Winter Ghyllwood, Old Harker and Low Harker

I AM fed up with pensioners grumbling about things they can put right themselves, while taking the modern easy way out by blaming someone else.

First we have the cannabis gran, growing an illegal substance, then trying to justify it.

Then we have people having difficulties with pensions at post offices.

All any pensioner needs to do is open a current account at a post office or any of the big banks, get the pension paid into that account and apply for a debit card; they will then be able to draw their pension at any post office in the country as the big banks and some building societies have an agreement or arrangement to this effect.

As for the other silly one about extra charges for people who do not pay by direct debit; it’s only fair that they should be charged extra, after all the people who do pay by direct debit are saving the company money as they do not have to send bills and reminders or wait for the money to come in.

The fact is that direct debit payers are probably subsidising indirectly the ones who do not.

This brings us back to the current account. Direct debits, such as for electricity and other utilities, can be paid from this and are very easy to arrange. Provided you keep enough money in the account, you need never worry about a bill again.

It is actually easier to save money this way, it is also safer as the money is not lying around in a bag or a drawer in the house. And the pension book is scrapped!

I am 75 and have no problems with any of the above, so get with it you old people and move with the times.

MR G NAYLORCarlisle

WE ARE being asked to recycle our rubbish.

I expect this is just a phase we are going through until someone in the Home Office thinks up something different.

In principle, I don’t mind, but it means extra work which takes up valuable time.

Some people are confused with all the different bins and bags and many live in fear of heavy fines if they don’t get it right.

For this process the government needs to look to the prison service, not the public.

There is a wealth of free labour here. Criminals’ time could be put to much better use than being locked away. They should be put to work in landfill sites, separating the rubbish for us.

There are potentially billions of pounds to be saved.

We would not require the large amount of recycling centres, bins, bin vehicles, drivers, administration costs, problems with vermin, seagulls, cats, dogs.

Or will someone say it is too demanding for them?

KEN MORTONLow Hesket

WE WRITE as deeply concerned church leaders across the Christian denominations from Carlisle and district.

We want to express our support for the stand taken by the Bishop of Carlisle (Letters, March 9) concerning the Sexual Orientation Regulations which have now become law.

We believe Bishop Graham was right to sound the alarm at this unprecedented and unwarranted change in our national life.

We agree with the Bishop that this government has taken unprecedented steps against churches and in particular the Roman Catholic Church by pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

This government has chosen to take the role of deciding right and wrong and then enforcing it with law.

In this it is undermining centuries of religious liberty and freedom of conscience and is playing God.

We agree with the letter sent by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Prime Minister saying: “The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.”

The danger of such an approach was further highlighted by the Archbishops when they wrote: “Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience.

“In legislating to promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating conditions in which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of conscience are put at risk.”

Rev Steve Donald, St John’s, Carlisle; Rev Colin Randall, Holme Eden, Croglin, and Wetheral with Warwick; Rev David Craven, Holme Eden; Sandy Falconer, Border Kirk, Carlisle; Rev Barry Thomas, Raffles Community Church; Steve Blake, Eden Community Church, Carlisle; Rev Gary Cregeen, Scotby and Cotehill with Cumwhinton; Pastor Alan Meyer, Elim Community Church, Carlisle and Brampton; Rev Ben Phillips, St Michael, Stanwix, with St Mark’s, Belah; Rev Ben King, St Michael, Stanwix, with St Mark’s, Belah; Rev John Libby, St James, Carlisle; Rev Ian Hardcastle, St James, Carlisle; Rev Simon Austen, Houghton with Kingmoor; Rev Chris Tinker, Houghton with Kingmoor; Chris Dunt, Victory Church, Carlisle; Stuart Causey, Carlisle Baptist; Rev Fergus Pearson, Hensingham, Whitehaven; Roland Barklem, Carlisle Christian Fellowship; Kevin McStay, Pray for the City; Monsignor Canon Greg Turner, Our Lady and St Joseph’s Catholic Church

FOLLOWING the public meeting to discuss the potential closure of Kingmoor Railway Bridge for the construction of the Carlisle Northern Development Route, I estimated the costs to the local community of the closure.

I hope that these figures will help persuade the county council not to allow the closure of the bridge.

The cost to the community of £1,276,000 is much greater than the saving to the council of £500,000.

Moreover, the £1,276,000 would be shared by the very few thousands of people in this community, with potential costs of approximately £2,000 to a single person.

The closure of Kingmoor Railway Bridge would result in a very significant drop in quality of life for our community.

In addition to these costs there are many other problems including pollution, congestion and danger to road users on the diversion, which is already busy with timber wagons, and which would be suffering further from construction traffic, not to mention the CNDR roadworks in the Asda area.

Mr Walsh argued at the meeting that increased risk is an important obstacle to keeping the bridge open.

I suggest that if risk management were really a concern over and above cost, then the new bridge would have been designed at a different location from the old to significantly reduce the risk.

KIRSTEN CROWTHERCargoCarlisle

PERHAPS Gus Proud would advise me as to why being co-opted on to a council is wrong or do I misinterpret his letter (The Cumberland News, April 6)?

As far as I am aware co-option is both legally and constitutionally in order.

Mention is made of a Purdah Period and electioneering for themselves: surely candidates are electioneering for the electorate, or at least I am.

Matter closed as far as I am concerned – more important things to do!

A HORTINWigton