Letter sent to the 3 local MPs for Brighton Pavilion, Brighton Kemptown and Hove, September 2010
Dear Member of Parliament
We are sure that the Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council is not alone in noting with great concern the decision by the Government to withdraw funding nationwide for free swimming for older people.
We are of course very much aware that there are significant financial problems in the country at present and that there is a government determination to tackle this problem by reducing costs both nationally and within local authorities.
Nevertheless we write to urge you to oppose in every way possible this retrograde policy which may save a relatively small amount of money in the short term, but will incur substantial additional long term costs for our futures.
It is widely acknowledged that we have a growing population of older people, and also that it is in everyone’s interest that older people are encouraged to keep themselves fit and active. Swimming is seen as an excellent way for older people both to keep fit and to reduce their need for medical support since this form of regular exercise is gentle on older frames and beneficial for their long term well-being. Keeping active will help reduce social isolation and also contributes significantly to warding off mental illnesses such as depression, and alzheimers and other dementias.
The Government initiative, introduced in April 2009, to offer free swimming to under 16s and the over 60s was a landmark moment in the bid for a healthier and more active nation. Building on the Olympic investment legacy, it enabled many to engage more often in one of the most popular participation sports, keep fit, tackle weight problems and save money in the long term for the NHS.
The cost to national and local budgets of providing free swimming for older people are minimal, while the financial benefits for the community of keeping people fit and active for as long as possible are huge, well documented and unquestioned. Already some local authorities have undertaken to maintain this valuable service to support the well-being of their local older communities (eg the London Borough of Newham), and we urge you to do your utmost to protect the interest of older people. And as much as we support the continuing provision of free swimming in Brighton & Hove for young people under 11, it is difficult to remain silent in the face of what appears to be age discrimination if an identical free service is withdrawn from older residents, for whom the health and social benefits are equally important.
Please support free swimming programmes for older people, and oppose short-sighted policies which threaten this valuable service and increase the health risks and cost of care for the older population
Yours sincerely
John Barry
Secretary, Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
Monday, 20 September 2010
Essential information for leaseholders
OPC member Ed Cruickshank-Rob on the facts about leasehold properties which every home buyer should know.
Since 1954, there have been no fewer than sixteen Acts of Parliament attempting to regulate the residential leasehold system. The latest is the 2002 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act which enables leaseholders to purchase the properties in which their flats are located or to seek the right to manage them. However, leasehold is still the only way to occupy many flats in Brighton and Hove and purchasers are often unaware of, or oblivious to, the real facts and pitfalls of leasehold.
Leaseholders do NOT actually own any property, just permission, subject to covenants and conditions, to live there for the time left on the lease. The property owner is always the freeholder who is in control. Leaseholders buy time, not property.
Leaseholders pay the freeholder for the management, maintenance and upkeep of the building, all of which is entirely at the discretion of the freeholder. As time passes, maintenance of the building and services costs more. Leaseholders pay for this, but the freehold gains value from improvements and repairs.
As time passes the lease also gets shorter, and a leasehold property loses value in two ways: it costs more to maintain, and the freeholder can charge more to lengthen a lease. The less time left on the lease, the less it’s worth, because it has to be returned (free of charge at the end of the period) to the freeholder who can sell it again. When a lease ends, the homes are still there but a leaseholder has to leave or may rent it back from the freeholder but without any long term security.
More information about leasehold can be found on the website of The Leasehold Advisory Service (www.lease-advice.org)
The OPC is seriously concerned that there are so many leaseholds in Brighton and Hove, including retirement flats, and numbers are increasing yearly with many ‘new build’ being sold on a leasehold basis. We will lobby our local MPs to urge the Government to seek means to end this archaic and unfair system once and for all.
Ed Cruickshank-Robb August 2010
Member, Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
Since 1954, there have been no fewer than sixteen Acts of Parliament attempting to regulate the residential leasehold system. The latest is the 2002 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act which enables leaseholders to purchase the properties in which their flats are located or to seek the right to manage them. However, leasehold is still the only way to occupy many flats in Brighton and Hove and purchasers are often unaware of, or oblivious to, the real facts and pitfalls of leasehold.
Leaseholders do NOT actually own any property, just permission, subject to covenants and conditions, to live there for the time left on the lease. The property owner is always the freeholder who is in control. Leaseholders buy time, not property.
Leaseholders pay the freeholder for the management, maintenance and upkeep of the building, all of which is entirely at the discretion of the freeholder. As time passes, maintenance of the building and services costs more. Leaseholders pay for this, but the freehold gains value from improvements and repairs.
As time passes the lease also gets shorter, and a leasehold property loses value in two ways: it costs more to maintain, and the freeholder can charge more to lengthen a lease. The less time left on the lease, the less it’s worth, because it has to be returned (free of charge at the end of the period) to the freeholder who can sell it again. When a lease ends, the homes are still there but a leaseholder has to leave or may rent it back from the freeholder but without any long term security.
More information about leasehold can be found on the website of The Leasehold Advisory Service (www.lease-advice.org)
The OPC is seriously concerned that there are so many leaseholds in Brighton and Hove, including retirement flats, and numbers are increasing yearly with many ‘new build’ being sold on a leasehold basis. We will lobby our local MPs to urge the Government to seek means to end this archaic and unfair system once and for all.
Ed Cruickshank-Robb August 2010
Member, Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
How convenient are our public toilets?
August 2010
PUBLIC TOILET FACILITIES IN BRIGHTON & HOVE: OPC members Jim Buttimer and John Barry speak out
For some years now the OPC has offered advice and requests to the City Council for improvements to the provision of publicly accessible toilet facilities in the City. The OPC’s interest in the subject dates back to August 2007 when an older member of the public raised the question, not of cleanliness, but of the number available. Older people, for a number of reasons, are more likely to be “caught short” than those who are younger and fitter, nor are they able to walk far in search of facilities
The City Council’s response was, and still is, that the present provision is adequate indeed generous. They quoted a total of 76 against Plymouth’s 32 but in fact the 76 include 18 in libraries, museums and leisure centres and 12 in business premises under the Council’s You’re Welcome scheme in which businesses are encouraged to allow members of the public to use their toilets without making a purchase. In the meantime the OPC became aware of a “Community Toilet” scheme operated by the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, similar to the “You’re Welcome” scheme save that the Council pays £600 a year to businesses that participate. Not surprisingly this had proved far more successful with 70 participants against Brighton & Hove’s 12 (in 2007). The OPC asked the City Council to consider this scheme without success.
We are aware that progress has been made locally: several new toilets for disabled people have been opened, the number of businesses participating in the You’re Welcome scheme has arisen to (a very modest) 17, and there are now 20 accessible in libraries, museums and leisure centres. We also note that several times in the last few years the City Council has won the Loo of the Year Award
These achievements are welcome, but there is an inadequately uniform provision. The City of Brighton and Hove says that it attracts around 8 million visitors a year, and it celebrates and benefits from its thriving night-time economy. But it is not unusual to see letters in the local press from visitors deploring the lack of sufficient public toilets in the places that tourists visit: for those choosing the beach area to the east of the Brighton Pier there are just two facilities along the beach to the Marina. Another example: there are no public toilets on the main shopping road between Churchill Square and Hove Town Hall. Yes, Churchill Square provides toilets available for public use, as does Marks and Spencer in Western Road, but only during shopping hours. What about the pensioner needing a toilet at say 9pm, not an excessively late hour? It is this unevenness in provision, with either insufficient facilities or early evening closures, which makes older people think twice before venturing out sometimes, and which also contributes to social isolation
The response from the City Council (ie to the LINk’s questions on public toilets in the city made to the Environment and Community Safety Overview & Scrutiny Panel) acknowledges that Kemptown is not well served with public toilets. In 2008 the OPC corresponded with the Council about the closure of the accessible toilets at the junction of St James Street and Upper Rock Gardens. There followed talk about developing a cafe at that location which would be expected to offer the You’re Welcome facility, but to date there has been no evident progress and this toilet, previously used by disabled older people, remains padlocked, with the nearest available one 400meters away uphill in Queens Park. In this area there are many older people and a lot of residents in sheltered housing schemes. Going out without the knowledge that there is easy access to toilet facilities in a serious problem for these people.
The OPC has also tried to persuade the City Council to make more information generally available regarding the location of existing toilet facilities. The Council has produced a map to that effect but it is less than ideal: in the comparatively large area bounded to the east by Queens Park, to the west by Montpelier Road and to the north by Brighton station this current map shows just 11 toilets. The online information which the City Council provides on its website does contain full details of all current toilet facilities, which is admirable, but we wonder how many people in practice know about this or actually check this list before venturing out?
We are in economically hard times, and few people expect miraculous improvements. Nevertheless Council provision in a thriving city such as Brighton & Hove should not be beyond the public purse, and that provision should continue to be supplemented by community toilet schemes on the lines of the You’re Welcome scheme as currently operates (albeit somewhat modestly) in Brighton and Hove with the aim of ensuring a variety of outlets offering toilet facilities over a substantial part of the day and night. And if the Council is comfortable with licensing city-centre pubs and clubs until very early in the morning, corresponding facilities for toilet users should be available over the same range of hours.
Finally the local authority should involve the local community as a whole (not just a customer satisfaction survey) when devising their public toilet strategy
Jim Buttimer and John Barry
Members, Brighton & Hove Older people’s Council
PUBLIC TOILET FACILITIES IN BRIGHTON & HOVE: OPC members Jim Buttimer and John Barry speak out
For some years now the OPC has offered advice and requests to the City Council for improvements to the provision of publicly accessible toilet facilities in the City. The OPC’s interest in the subject dates back to August 2007 when an older member of the public raised the question, not of cleanliness, but of the number available. Older people, for a number of reasons, are more likely to be “caught short” than those who are younger and fitter, nor are they able to walk far in search of facilities
The City Council’s response was, and still is, that the present provision is adequate indeed generous. They quoted a total of 76 against Plymouth’s 32 but in fact the 76 include 18 in libraries, museums and leisure centres and 12 in business premises under the Council’s You’re Welcome scheme in which businesses are encouraged to allow members of the public to use their toilets without making a purchase. In the meantime the OPC became aware of a “Community Toilet” scheme operated by the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, similar to the “You’re Welcome” scheme save that the Council pays £600 a year to businesses that participate. Not surprisingly this had proved far more successful with 70 participants against Brighton & Hove’s 12 (in 2007). The OPC asked the City Council to consider this scheme without success.
We are aware that progress has been made locally: several new toilets for disabled people have been opened, the number of businesses participating in the You’re Welcome scheme has arisen to (a very modest) 17, and there are now 20 accessible in libraries, museums and leisure centres. We also note that several times in the last few years the City Council has won the Loo of the Year Award
These achievements are welcome, but there is an inadequately uniform provision. The City of Brighton and Hove says that it attracts around 8 million visitors a year, and it celebrates and benefits from its thriving night-time economy. But it is not unusual to see letters in the local press from visitors deploring the lack of sufficient public toilets in the places that tourists visit: for those choosing the beach area to the east of the Brighton Pier there are just two facilities along the beach to the Marina. Another example: there are no public toilets on the main shopping road between Churchill Square and Hove Town Hall. Yes, Churchill Square provides toilets available for public use, as does Marks and Spencer in Western Road, but only during shopping hours. What about the pensioner needing a toilet at say 9pm, not an excessively late hour? It is this unevenness in provision, with either insufficient facilities or early evening closures, which makes older people think twice before venturing out sometimes, and which also contributes to social isolation
The response from the City Council (ie to the LINk’s questions on public toilets in the city made to the Environment and Community Safety Overview & Scrutiny Panel) acknowledges that Kemptown is not well served with public toilets. In 2008 the OPC corresponded with the Council about the closure of the accessible toilets at the junction of St James Street and Upper Rock Gardens. There followed talk about developing a cafe at that location which would be expected to offer the You’re Welcome facility, but to date there has been no evident progress and this toilet, previously used by disabled older people, remains padlocked, with the nearest available one 400meters away uphill in Queens Park. In this area there are many older people and a lot of residents in sheltered housing schemes. Going out without the knowledge that there is easy access to toilet facilities in a serious problem for these people.
The OPC has also tried to persuade the City Council to make more information generally available regarding the location of existing toilet facilities. The Council has produced a map to that effect but it is less than ideal: in the comparatively large area bounded to the east by Queens Park, to the west by Montpelier Road and to the north by Brighton station this current map shows just 11 toilets. The online information which the City Council provides on its website does contain full details of all current toilet facilities, which is admirable, but we wonder how many people in practice know about this or actually check this list before venturing out?
We are in economically hard times, and few people expect miraculous improvements. Nevertheless Council provision in a thriving city such as Brighton & Hove should not be beyond the public purse, and that provision should continue to be supplemented by community toilet schemes on the lines of the You’re Welcome scheme as currently operates (albeit somewhat modestly) in Brighton and Hove with the aim of ensuring a variety of outlets offering toilet facilities over a substantial part of the day and night. And if the Council is comfortable with licensing city-centre pubs and clubs until very early in the morning, corresponding facilities for toilet users should be available over the same range of hours.
Finally the local authority should involve the local community as a whole (not just a customer satisfaction survey) when devising their public toilet strategy
Jim Buttimer and John Barry
Members, Brighton & Hove Older people’s Council
Friday, 24 October 2008
Harry Steer says it is time for anger and shouting!
I recently had the opportunity, with my fellow member of the OPC Francis Tonks, to talk to the Pensioners' Association about the Older People's Council, its formation, development and recent strategies. Apart from the Chair's proposal that there ought to be a competition held to suggest what 80 year olds could best spend their 25p increment on, which I thought was an excellent idea, a number of questions and observations arose. One was why isn't the OPC better known and others ranged around what are we doing and what were we actually for.Another observation pointed out that there were literally dozens of organisations ostensibly working for older people but seemingly getting nowhere when the one fundamental question is asked; why are we so miserably off in real money terms. We agreed at that meeting that this is an obscenity. Recently hiked up charges for gas and electricity, coupled with rising food prices leave many of us with the alternative, eat or heat, freeze to death or starve. Also recently I have been to a number of meetings suggesting that something ought to be done. There should be forward planning, there should be more health provision, better accomodation etc, etc which I seem to have heard continuously since my early days as a councillor in the 1960's!
I was reminded from all this of the words recorded, in translation, of a Roman army administrator named Caius Petronius talking in AD 66 who said, "We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be re-organised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress whilst producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation". Nothing has changed in 2000 years! We talk about it and talk about it, but very little seems to get done. Let's form a Committee, a Working Party, a one day Conference, an Advisory Group!
Now we are entering the Conference season. Will any of the political parties address the issue of worthwhile pensions, or will it again be talked about, surveys undertaken, advisory bodies set up, comparisons made, one-off payments suggested for fuel bills, food bills or insulation, or ..... you name it!
This brings me back to our Pensioners' Association meeting and the questions asked. The OPC is not wider known because despite all attempts at publicity the media broadly is not interested unless there is a degree of sensation. Starve in a bed-sit this winter or die of hypothermia and there will be shock, horror .... but will anything result? We feel frustrated at lack of focus, the lack of attention, but where do we go? We in the OPC continue to raise issues appertaining to the nearly 50,000 of us in this City often with good effect. However my personal feeling is that now is the time for anger and shouting.We cannot wait twenty years while people plan and talk; we need action now. After all, that great economist, Maynard Keynes said, "In the long term we are all dead"!
Harry Steer
Chair
Brighton & Hove Older People's Council
I was reminded from all this of the words recorded, in translation, of a Roman army administrator named Caius Petronius talking in AD 66 who said, "We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be re-organised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress whilst producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation". Nothing has changed in 2000 years! We talk about it and talk about it, but very little seems to get done. Let's form a Committee, a Working Party, a one day Conference, an Advisory Group!
Now we are entering the Conference season. Will any of the political parties address the issue of worthwhile pensions, or will it again be talked about, surveys undertaken, advisory bodies set up, comparisons made, one-off payments suggested for fuel bills, food bills or insulation, or ..... you name it!
This brings me back to our Pensioners' Association meeting and the questions asked. The OPC is not wider known because despite all attempts at publicity the media broadly is not interested unless there is a degree of sensation. Starve in a bed-sit this winter or die of hypothermia and there will be shock, horror .... but will anything result? We feel frustrated at lack of focus, the lack of attention, but where do we go? We in the OPC continue to raise issues appertaining to the nearly 50,000 of us in this City often with good effect. However my personal feeling is that now is the time for anger and shouting.We cannot wait twenty years while people plan and talk; we need action now. After all, that great economist, Maynard Keynes said, "In the long term we are all dead"!
Harry Steer
Chair
Brighton & Hove Older People's Council
Open letter to The Argus concerning Paying for Social Care
Many of us will need social care at some time, especially as we get older or experience illness or a disability (for example, social care in a home, support to continue living in one’s own home, the treatment for long-term conditions like diabetes or mental illness). How will we pay for that care in future? Who will pay for it? The government has estimated that in 20 year’s time there will be an additional 1.7 million people needing support, and there is likely to be a £6billion shortfall in the funding for this care
There are questions here which concern us all:
What should be the balance between family, individual and the government for providing funding for care?
Should Government funding be the same for everyone, or allocated in different ways, dependent on need, ability to pay, local area, or the onset of disability?
What is the role of taxation or some form of social insurance?
How important for the system is national consistency or local flexibility?
What is our individual responsibility for our care needs in later life?
Should anyone be expected to sell their home to pay for care? Are there other, better ways of paying for care?
What should be the balance between targeting resources at those least able to pay and supporting those who plan ahead? Means testing may penalise those who have saved for the future, but without means testing support for those who need it most will be more restricted
Most people underestimate the likelihood that they will need long term care. A third of all men and half of women reaching 65 will need care at some time in the future. Social care does not just happen to someone else. It happens to us
Brighton and Hove Older People’s Council would like to submit a summary of views from local residents to a nationwide consultation ahead of forthcoming government proposals for future funding of social care. If you have any comments, please send them by the end of October
You can either
write to The Older People’s Council, Room 39, Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove BN32SS
or
email us at olderpeoplescouncil@brighton-hove.gov.uk
or
post your comments on this blog
John Barry
Secretary, Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
There are questions here which concern us all:
What should be the balance between family, individual and the government for providing funding for care?
Should Government funding be the same for everyone, or allocated in different ways, dependent on need, ability to pay, local area, or the onset of disability?
What is the role of taxation or some form of social insurance?
How important for the system is national consistency or local flexibility?
What is our individual responsibility for our care needs in later life?
Should anyone be expected to sell their home to pay for care? Are there other, better ways of paying for care?
What should be the balance between targeting resources at those least able to pay and supporting those who plan ahead? Means testing may penalise those who have saved for the future, but without means testing support for those who need it most will be more restricted
Most people underestimate the likelihood that they will need long term care. A third of all men and half of women reaching 65 will need care at some time in the future. Social care does not just happen to someone else. It happens to us
Brighton and Hove Older People’s Council would like to submit a summary of views from local residents to a nationwide consultation ahead of forthcoming government proposals for future funding of social care. If you have any comments, please send them by the end of October
You can either
write to The Older People’s Council, Room 39, Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove BN32SS
or
email us at olderpeoplescouncil@brighton-hove.gov.uk
or
post your comments on this blog
John Barry
Secretary, Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
Open letter to Brighton & Hove MPs concerning older people and energy costs
I write to you as secretary of the Brighton & Hove Older People’s Council
Everyone will be aware of the recent and unprecedented increases in energy costs, and the resulting prices rises imposed by energy suppliers for gas and electricity. The effect of these increases will obviously be felt by everyone, but we are particularly concerned about the impact on older people in Brighton and Hove. Many of these people are on limited incomes and have few reserves to fall back on. Some have already spoken to us of their real worries about coping during the coming winter
The Ofgem report published earlier this week (Ofgem: Energy Supply Probe – Initial Findings, 6 October 2008) provides telling evidence of the energy problems faced by many elderly people. There are 9.1 million people over the age of 65 in this country. By no means all of them are fuel poor but included in that figure is a high number of the economically poor, the chronically sick and the disabled. Adequate heating is essential for them. For their energy supplies many older people are standard credit customers or on prepayment meters, and because of their economic status many tend to be less likely than others to have access to the best price deals
We know that energy saving and efficiency schemes, promoted both by the government and by Brighton and Hove City Council, are aimed at helping the fuel poor and vulnerable energy consumers. These and all similar measures may produce long term savings, but these initiatives offer little prospect of immediate help with winter fuel bills for the elderly and those on low incomes
In the current economic uncertainty over the problems in the banking and financial sectors there remains an absolutely vital need to support vulnerable older citizens. We have long argued that the state pension is simply inadequate for those with limited resources. Now more than ever we need your support for a significant pension increase which would be of crucial assistance in meeting higher energy costs. We urge you to support vigorously any move to increase the winter fuel payments for older people
Finally the Older People’s Council asks that you make representations to the relevant minister requesting that immediate assistance be given to older people to help with their direct energy costs this winter
Yours sincerely
John Barry
Secretary, Brighton& Hove Older People’s Council
Everyone will be aware of the recent and unprecedented increases in energy costs, and the resulting prices rises imposed by energy suppliers for gas and electricity. The effect of these increases will obviously be felt by everyone, but we are particularly concerned about the impact on older people in Brighton and Hove. Many of these people are on limited incomes and have few reserves to fall back on. Some have already spoken to us of their real worries about coping during the coming winter
The Ofgem report published earlier this week (Ofgem: Energy Supply Probe – Initial Findings, 6 October 2008) provides telling evidence of the energy problems faced by many elderly people. There are 9.1 million people over the age of 65 in this country. By no means all of them are fuel poor but included in that figure is a high number of the economically poor, the chronically sick and the disabled. Adequate heating is essential for them. For their energy supplies many older people are standard credit customers or on prepayment meters, and because of their economic status many tend to be less likely than others to have access to the best price deals
We know that energy saving and efficiency schemes, promoted both by the government and by Brighton and Hove City Council, are aimed at helping the fuel poor and vulnerable energy consumers. These and all similar measures may produce long term savings, but these initiatives offer little prospect of immediate help with winter fuel bills for the elderly and those on low incomes
In the current economic uncertainty over the problems in the banking and financial sectors there remains an absolutely vital need to support vulnerable older citizens. We have long argued that the state pension is simply inadequate for those with limited resources. Now more than ever we need your support for a significant pension increase which would be of crucial assistance in meeting higher energy costs. We urge you to support vigorously any move to increase the winter fuel payments for older people
Finally the Older People’s Council asks that you make representations to the relevant minister requesting that immediate assistance be given to older people to help with their direct energy costs this winter
Yours sincerely
John Barry
Secretary, Brighton& Hove Older People’s Council
Friday, 28 March 2008
Government seeks OPC advice
Many services affecting older people in the city are controlled by national bodies. This means that increasingly the OPC is consulted by these bodies on new developments. Because of the OPC’s fight for the retention of the Brighton to Watford train service the Department for Transport now asks for our views during consultation periods. We are currently being asked for our views on two projects affecting disabled passengers. MPs recognise the experience present in the OPC and consult us. We are currently discussing our attitude to a document issued by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills dealing with the long term future of Informal Adult Learning – a subject very dear to our hearts as we have watched “Life Long Learning” cease to justify its title. The City & Guilds training organisation decided to run course for those working with older people – we were consulted at every stage. All of which results in the OPC being listed amongst major national and regional bodies as consultees!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
