Last updated 11:22, Thursday, 02 October 2008

SIR – I have been so pleased with the changes made to Whitehaven town over recent years, since the “Renaissance of Whitehaven” back in the 1990s when more than £60million was injected into the town. This has all been money well spent.

Future tense: Pears House at the moment and its plans

The harbour area, being the soul of our town, should be put in the same category as a listed building and any further development should complement the existing Georgian buildings.
The recent renaissance has carefully taken into consideration the town’s maritime history and Georgian architecture and schemes such as The Beacon, Inland Revenue offices, the Crow’s Nest, the Wave, lock gates, the castle development and the Rum Story have all been added, tastefully complementing the already good character of our town.
After this good work I had every confidence in our planning board in that when Pears House and Mark House are torn down they would be redeveloped with structures fitting to a fine old Georgian town. But now, seeing the steelwork going in place for the Pears House replacement, I am becoming concerned as to how in keeping this building will be and have made it my business to examine the plans.
Shame on you, planning board, how could you get it so wrong, and permit this development? It looks like an apartment block from the Spanish Costas and has no right to stand in the soul of our fine old historic town.
Also I see the three apartments on floor five alone total a selling price of over one million pounds. Three families will benefit from a splendid view of our town while the town’s people must suffer this blot on our landscape!
Has Whitehaven sold its soul to the DEVELopers?
Peter WHELAN
Padstow, Cleator Moor
Deja vu over homes plan
SIR – Having read your article “We will not be moved” last week, I think to myself: Haven’t we been here before?
It only seems like yesterday that Copeland Homes ran a similar “consultation” (?) regarding the future of Pow Beck Court on Mirehouse. If your readers recall, residents at the time were told that “nothing was cut and dried”. Yet we now know that Pow Beck is to be demolished with no decision, as yet, on what will be done with the land.
The residents of Greenvale Court have every reason to be suspicious of Home Housing. I say that in is Copeland Homes not a member of Home Housing and since the decision was made to transfer housing stock to Home Housing, there will be three sheltered housing units available for the elderly of our area, if as I suspect, Greenvale Court is closed.
During the sorry saga of Pow Beck Court, in an attempt to find out and understand Copeland Homes’ policies and plans for elderly accommodation in Copeland, I too contacted Copeland leader Elaine Woodburn and MP Jamie Reed, along with numerous other councillors who sit on the board of Copeland Homes.
I’m sure your readers will be unsurprised to hear that I’m still awaiting some clarity on just what those policies look like.
Isn’t it time that both Copeland Homes and Home Housing stopped hiding behind “financial” considerations and instead showed some commitment and clear policies on how they intend to move forward with sheltered accommodation for the elderly and vulnerable within the Copeland area?
We should all be supporting the residents of Greenvale Court in their fight to remain where they are and if, as appears the case, the decision has already been taken to close and demolish Greenvale, then a clear commitment should be sought to use the land to create better sheltered accommodation that is compatible with modern day living, instead of using Government policies to remove properties from their portfolio.
I urge all your readers to think about how all this reflects on how we really look after the elderly in our society. After all, we will all be in need of some level of care as we get older and everything I read in your article last week, points to less choice, not “better” choices for the elderly in Copeland.
John TEAR
Mirehouse, Whitehaven

SIR – Thank you for highlighting the issue of an uncertain future for Greenvale Court, particularly when the residents shared the front page headlines with “Parents hit out at bus charges” and the tragic plight of “Michael loses NHS cancer appeal.”
However, the level of a nation’s civilization is based on how we care for the young, the elderly and sick members of our society. As a first nation shouldn’t we be doing just that, irrespective of any prejudices of age, race, ability or religion?
My concern is that of the residents of Greenvale Court. My aunt lives quite happily there, all local amenities are available such as a general practitioner’s surgery at the back of Greenvale Court, a local post office, and a butchers, bakers and general stores, with the provision of a main bus route.
The idea of inviting The Whitehaven News to Greenvale Court was to inform the wider community of Frizington of what was happening to the elderly residents in the hope that other family members and friends of the residents may join forces, and form an action committee.
Home Housing held a meeting at Greenvale Court at 2pm on Monday, September 8. Family and friends were welcome but unfortunately there was only myself and two other people representing their family member(s).
Perhaps if Home Housing set a more appropriate time, such as in the evening or on a weekend, there may have been more support for the residents, arranging a suitable time regarding work and family commitments of the residents’ relatives to be taken into consideration.
Was this a ploy on behalf of Home Housing? The residents were stunned into silence following the initial introduction of proposals.
I was glad that I was able to attend; it was coincidence that it was my day off.
This is not a one-person crusade. To coin a phrase “Your community needs you.” Please feel free to join in, to help save Greenvale Court.
I have started the ball rolling. My family are also helping but more people need to be involved.
We have contacted MP Jamie Reed, and he has acknowledged our letter, as did Councillor Elaine Woodburn.
If any one of the residents’ family or friends are interested in helping to continue raising awareness, please contact me via the information board at Greenvale Court. Then we can form an action group and go on to widen the appeal outside of Greenvale, Frizington and into Copeland as this is happening to various residents of Home Housing throughout Cumbria.
Norma CHARTERS
High Padstow, Cleator Moor
Let’s all try to work together
SIR – I couldn’t have dreamt up a more vague or negative response to my letter of two weeks ago, and coming from the borough council leader even more so.
Elaine Woodburn states I refer to “the council” as though I were not a member. I was trying to be non- specific, but let’s change it to “the cabinet”, of which she is the leader and therefore with whom the buck stops.
One of my jobs as a councillor in opposition is to hold the ruling party to account, and that is exactly what I will continue to do. To suggest I am not taking the issue of the town centre seriously is a joke – it was me who initiated the business summit meeting while lobbying our MP in Parliament, and he agreed with most of what I suggested and added his own ideas.
No purpose would be served by me joining all the town centre groups – if any of them think I might help they know where I am. What is more I have never criticised any of them ever: they are all doing their best against the odds, be it the Chamber of Trade, the James Street action group, or Gerard Richardson’s SOS group. She might ask herself why they found it necessary to exist at all.
As for things taking time, just how long does it take? The shop in the Market Place has been in its present state for many years – I won’t embarrass her by putting a number to it. But I will say the very first question I asked after being elected was why it was being left in the state it was in: the reply was it would be too expensive. Since then I have become more informed, there is a local government act to accommodate just such an issue, Allerdale have used it why doesn’t Copeland?
Finally she suggests I resign. The voters in Bransty ward will decide that, just like they did with the Labour councillor whom they ejected at the last elections and put me in his/her place.
Since my last letter yet another shop has closed its doors for good, and I have information that a large store is looking at its Whitehaven operation, I would be quite happy to meet Elaine and talk through our issues and differences if she is prepared to.
The town needs specific action and not just as part of an overall plan.
Councillor A MOSSOP
West Cumb FSB chair
Time to rethink hospital plans
SIR – The debate regarding the siting of the new hospital raises the question of why we need a new hospital at all. There is no doubt the Labour government have poured vast amounts of taxpayers money into the health service. Unfortunately a lot of this money has been wasted.
The present hospital does need refurbishment, but is perfectly adequate for our needs and is after all only 50 years old.
Why therefore are we proposing to spend £300 million of taxpayers money when we could refurbish the present hospital for £30 million.
We need to go back to square one and rethink our options. Perhaps the credit crunch, financial turmoil and out-of-control government borrowing will focus some common sense into the debate.
Mr J WALSH
Hillcrest, Whitehaven

SIR – Mr Glazebrook is right when he says in his letter that by choosing the site for the new hospital it must be situated in the catchment area serving Whitehaven, Workington, Cockermouth and Maryport.
So it must be said that the most suitable site for this catchment area is surely Lillyhall where this is flat land, unlike the Hensingham site where the West Cumberland Hospital was subject to all the elements of weather being on a hill and this must be why it has cost so much to maintain this hospital.
The Lillyhall site is central for all the area and the ambulance station is near and on the main A595 for easy access.
James TAYLOR
Mid-town Close, Distington

Why interchange is vital for town
SIR – Mr J Mooney asks (News, September 25), if we really do need the bus/rail interchange at Whitehaven. The answer: Yes, we do!
Whilst the pros and cons of Tesco expansion may be the subject of much debate, what annoys me most of all about the scheme is the fact that most of the land on which the Tesco (then William Low) supermarket was built was once railway land, but because the policy of various governments towards the railway network was to run it down, it was sold for development.
In addition, the lack of communication and consultation between the various bodies and authorities has left us with the situation we have now, so that if anyone asks me where our station is, the simplest answer to give is: “Behind Tesco”. Other developments close by do not seem to have taken into account the proximity to the station as a means of commuting, so extra traffic is now coming into and going out of Whitehaven at what are already busy times.
The present station, which we were lucky to have built at the same time, is now proving too small for the numbers using the train service, so something needs to be done to cater for this, as well as to provide a more integrated, seamless journey for travellers.
C A POTTS
Chairman
Copeland Rail Users’ Group
Democracy is key to decision
SIR – As a former member of the government’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), I wholeheartedly endorse Jamie Reed MP’s call for a referendum (The Whitehaven News, September 25) on the issue of hosting a nuclear waste repository, not only in Copeland but in any area where the local authority is minded to express a willingness to enter the volunteer process.
The three-year CoRWM process which culminated in a report to government in July 2006 was designed to move us away from the disastrous policy of imposing a waste repository on communities to one of volunteerism, co-operation and community ‘rewards’.
Should the local authority be minded to volunteer, imposition can only logically be avoided if the recipient community has its say in the form of a referendum and if there is automatic ratification of and concurrence with the outcome of that plebiscite at all levels of local authority.
Anything less than a referendum and automatic ratification will unavoidably result in the possibility of reverting to imposing a repository against the will of local people and will not allow a popular mandate to be unequivocally demonstrated.
But beware: a key reason CoRWM did not support my call for referenda to be made mandatory was because, in the words of one member who spoke for many pro-disposers on the Committee, ‘If you allow a referendum, you’ll never get a respository.’ Yes, a referendum will require a lot of organising and a lot of information provision over a long period of time, but that, in case those planning the truncation of the planning process and those opposed to referenda hadn’t noticed, is what democracy demands of us and is what democracy is all about.
Pete WILKINSON
Wilkinson Environmental Consulting Ltd
Halesworth, Suffolk

SIR – On the whole I agree that a referendum would be a good idea in order to ensure our full community has a proper say, although Mr Reed was not specific as to how this ‘referendum’ would be carried out.
This subject was also raised at our Liberal Democrat conference at Bournemouth and I was able to speak for our community. It is clear from the many people I have spoken to in Copeland that, while many want nuclear ‘new build’, the separate problem of dealing with not just our legacy waste but everybody else’s as well is another matter.
There appear to be three issues in peoples minds:
Any ‘planning gain’ would have to be up-front and substantial, not vague promises.
We are at present the only area to express an interest in taking the waste: how much ‘choice’ would we really have if no one else expresses an interest or drops out later? We already take the majority of such waste now.
It was evident from the speakers from the industry at the conference that, while safety came high in their priority, saving money was just as important, as this was a vital part of the contract for the private providers. Copelanders want safety a higher priority than, not equal to, competitive provision.
Real consultation is valued by the public but this government has a shameful record when it comes to consultation on this subject. Don’t forget the energy white paper of last year!
Frank HOLLOWELL
Copeland and Workington Liberal Democrats
Solway Road, Lowca