MENTAL health care facility plans unanimously approved. The former Oswaldtwistle Clinic at 119 Union Road will be used by up to nine women (website October 18)
Judith Addison: If you had all seen the ‘access statement’ on the case file I think you would have agreed with me that it was a poorly presented document - brief, vague and not even typed on a company letter heading. A phrase like “for people with varied mental health issues” is not informative enough for me. Just before the planning officer was due to prepare his report for committee he contacted the applicant and agent for further specific information. He asked questions - “What care and/or support will be provided to residents of the home?” “How will residents be managed?” “Will there be 24 hour on site supervision or will it be limited to day care if at all?” “Provision/supervision of medication?” etc. From these questions it was ascertained that the residents would all be female, that they would have individual care plans prepared by appropriate professionals, that there would be 24 hour supervision, that medication would be administered in a controlled way by suitably trained personnel and that there would never be any residents who had been “sectioned” under the Mental Health Acts. I commented at the meeting that if this information had been supplied in the first place, it would have largely allayed the fears of residents. As a local councillor I make no apology for voicing the concerns of residents. It is up to applicants to give full information in the first place - this would save a lot of misunderstanding and heartache. Exactly the same situation is occurring with two applications for hotels/guest houses (one in Accrington, one in Clayton) to be converted into “supported living accommodation”. Residents have written in expressing concerns. In order to address these and to provide a clearer picture of the purpose of these facilities, the planning officer dealing with these applications has had to request from the applicant/agent an “agent’s confirmation of potential residents’ backgrounds” and to post these on the two case files. Applicants could reduce “opposition” to their proposals by providing more detailed information in the first place. Lynn Maguire: It is needed.
ACCRINGTON Stanley “shocked and saddened” at death of Academy star Jordan Moseley (Website October 18) Christine Lingard: How very sad. Condolences to his family and friends. RIP. Janice Thompson: That’s so sad condolences our thoughts are with family and friends. Christine Rawcliffe: How sad. Sending my sincere condolences to the family, may he rest in peace. Jim Moore: Thoughts and prayers to his family, god bless. Bryon Taylor: That’s so sad. Karen Allan: How very sad. RIP. Jean Rio Alderson: Bless you young man. Linda Rees: So so sad. Love to his family. Melissa Fisher: Truly heartbreaking. Anne Ellwood: Very sad. Prayers to his family.
COUPLE’S outrage after council removes decorative stones from baby daughter’s grave. Accrington cemetery staff removed the memorial to Niamh Ellen McDonald on health and safety grounds (October 17) Matt Taylor: You can argue about the health and safety concerns all day but surely the important issue here is that the family were not consulted prior to its removal. I would feel exactly the same way. The plot is a private space and is a connection between the family and their lost loved ones. Louise Grimshaw: These people have lost the most precious gift in life and the council come along and do this! Joanne L Bury: Absolute nonsense what harm can a few stones do. Katy Joyce: It would have made more sense if they’d have spoke to you firstly - and given you the option to fence them in. So insensitive.