MOVE WITH THE VOTE
FEARS OVER CARE PLANS
MAY I express my deep concern at Cheshire East’s plans to off-load its respite care services on to the private sector.
I understand that this also means the future of Hollins View care home is under threat.
I’m the carer of an 80-year-old man with Alzheimer’s disease and I simply don’t know how my family and I would cope without this wonderful place.
All I would ask is that the councillors making the decision think how they would cope 24/7 as an elderly person looking after someone with dementia, getting no sleep for nights on end, having to be permanently vigilant for days and weeks, being subjected to anger from people they have loved all their life with the only salvation being the thought of a few days respite provided by the wonderful staff at Hollins View.
What alarms me most about this move is the lack of information. I haven’t even been notified of any consultation or meetings. I note the ‘PR spin’ tone of the council comments in last week’s Express with sadness.
I’m not against privatisation but would welcome assurances on the cost, quality and future location of care. If this care were to be moved out of Macclesfield that would be impossible for me and other carers to cope with.
I hope the councillors have thought long and hard about this decision and are not just making it based purely on cost. These are people’s lives they are dealing with and these are decisions not to be taken lightly. Concerned carer Macclesfield
DECLINE OF A VILLAGE
I WAS sad to read about the decline in visitors to Prestbury Village.
It was our holiday destination when we were young children. We spent most of our summer holidays going there with other families just to picnic and paddle in the stream. We walked from Macclesfield cutting across the fields.
We could never afford holidays but we enjoyed Prestbury just as much.
We still visit the village when I come to visit my relatives in Macclesfield. Mrs PM Jenkins (Nee Bowers)
PAYING MORE FOR LESS?
RE: A Parish Council for Macclesfield.
I note we are being asked to vote in the ‘Macclesfield Community Governance Review’.
This gives us the chance to either have an ‘enhanced local service delivery committee’ or to have a town council, based either on the whole of Macclesfield or one per ward. What foolish nonsense is this? Where is the option on the ballot paper for ‘none of the above’ and to have no extra layers of Local Government, but just leave it as elected Cheshire East Borough councillors?
Why should we be asked to pay more in council tax when we have done away with the expensive tier system of county/borough and now have a unified council in East Cheshire? Why import another layer of councillors?
It is nothing to do with ‘more democracy’ and – firstly – has everything to do with having lots more unnecessary elected councillors and another layer of expensive bureaucracy.
Secondly, the really ‘cunning plan’ here is for Cheshire East to devolve responsibility for the likes of open spaces, allotments, cemetaries and anything else it can get away with to a town council, which will want to charge for these services and add to your council tax bill. Philip Clark Macclesfield
SOLD TO HIGHEST BID
“METHODIST Church sold to the highest bidder” (July 30)
I am sure that, like us, many of your readers will have been shocked and saddened to read of the sale of the Methodist Church in Bollington to a mystery ‘bidder’ for an undisclosed sum over the heads of the Bollington Community Heritage Trust, which had raised the asking price to keep the church as a community facility, but was, it seems, effectively ‘gazumped’ by an outsider, with the approval of the body which owns the church.
This body is not a hardnosed property company operating from somewhere offshore, but is none other than the Methodist Church Council.
We can only assume that the mystery bidder also has a plan to keep the church for community use, but his/her plan is more attractive than the one proposed by the Heritage Trust, as it is impossible to believe that the Methodist Council would suspend its moral principles and be tempted purely by a more lucrative commercial sale.
It is said that the Charity Commission determines the outcome as it requires the sale to be to the highest bidder. Does that mean that it would oppose a sale to a charitable organisation – in this case the Heritage Trust, the sort of organisation, you imagine, it exists to represent, and one which has raised the asking price. Once again the world’s turned upside down. David and Jean Ransley
CRICKET CHARITY A HIT
A BIG thank you to everyone involved in staging the Bollington Cricket Club charity match.
I attended with my family on Sunday and had a great time in the sunshine watching some superb cricket, enjoyed a gorgeous burger and cream tea, won a tombola prize and met a very friendly Shaun Goater who had time for everyone.
Hopefully lots of money was raised for Cystic Fibrosis Trust. A massive thank you too to the very kind teenager who gave away his tombola prize of a trampoline to my thrilled five-year-old son. All of THE turn-out for the vote on the town council was disappointing, though the lack of publicity about it hardly helped to get the election into the public’s mind.
However, we should at least be pleased that the vote was nearly double some of those for the local Police Commissioners: fortunately, the polls this week in the Midlands – under 10 per cent – made our vote in Macclesfield for a council look rather encouraging.
Since it is inconceivable that a council can simply ignore a vote, and thus ignore the will of the people – whatever the lowness of the voting figure – may we assume that plans are rapidly being made by Cheshire East for the implementation of the single Macclesfield council?
And may I respectfully ask our MP and local influential groups like Make It Macclesfield to ensure that Cheshire East behaves in the appropriate manner and, as with the Police Commissioner elections, moves forward according to the result of the vote taken?