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it is difficult to remain silent in the face of what appears to be age discrimination if an identical free service is withdrawn from older residents, for whom the health and social benefits are equally important.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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
