Purpose

To comment on proposals from the Sheltered
Housing Review that affect the Buchan area.

Content

Agreed (1) to hear 2 requests to speak, (2) to
provide following comments to Communities Cttee (a) having raised
issue that IIA for Cantlay Court makes reference to where there are
alternative facilities in town centre locations, to note that there
are no town centre complexes in the Buchan area, (b) to highlight
that these proposals impact on a wide-range of issues, such as the
tenants making visits to GP practises and accessing health care
that they have become familiar and comfortable with, and that these
issues must be taken into consideration, (c) in considering Place,
the Council needs to be careful not to dismiss rural facilities
outwith a town centre, (d) in having
now been advised that alternative models are being considered, that
the closure proposals should be delayed until the alternative
models have been put before all Members for consideration and
comment, (e) that the process for dealing with these proposals was
not good and has caused great stress for the tenants who remain
confused, this needs to be borne in mind and addressed as the
situation moves forward, (f) in relation to Cantlay Court, Cruden
Bay (i) that communication between the
Council and tenants should have been dealt with better and with
more respect by way of personal communication to each individual
tenant, (ii) that the public engagement sessions should have been
advertised in a way that allowed sufficient time for people to
learn about them and which would have likely resulted in a better
turnout, (iii) to highlight the stress and concern of how these
proposals have impacted on tenants given many of them have always
lived in Cruden Bay and want to continue to stay in
Cruden Bay given their families, friends and support networks
are there and they feel that they are being forced out of a
community that they are part of, and (iv) for these reasons Cantlay
Court should remain open, (g) in relation to Forbes Court, New
Pitsligo (i) at this time Members do
not have sufficient information to make a decision, (ii) due to
reduced hours at Strichen Health Centre, more people are having to
be seen at the New Pitsligo Practise, and this presents a
problem in that New Pitsligo is not well served by local
transportation, (iii) New Pitsligo is growing in terms of
community spirit and, in time, there could be more demand for this
type of accommodation, particularly with better advertising of
vacancies; it may be premature to close this facility and therefore
the proposal for closure should be taken ‘off the
table’ and the alternative model referred to, along with
stats and actual facts, should be shared with Members to allow due
consideration, (iv) whilst acknowledging that budgets have to be
considered, there should be more emphasis on Place when decisions,
such as these, are being taken, and (h) in relation to Renouard
Court, St Fergus, having met with the tenants local Members felt
that the residents have now accepted the proposals put forward