Sheltered housing residents in Angus have continued to speak out about the future of the services they currently use.
In a joint letter Dave Coull, from Inglis Court in Edzell, Ted Smith, from Blackfriars Court in Montrose, and Tom Fowler, from Jubilee Court in Letham, maintained they would oppose losing facilities.
They said: “We reject suggestions floated by some council officials that sheltered housing tenants in Angus could lose laundry facilities. We will oppose this.
“We reject the suggestions floated by some council officials that sheltered housing complexes in Angus could lose their guest rooms. When we use that facility, we pay for the guest room, and we are responsible for our guests.
“Many sheltered housing tenants have family who live a long way away, and our own flats are too small to accommodate visitors. Losing the guest rooms would make people more isolated from their families.”
The trio stated the communal lounge areas, which are used to allow residents to socialise with one another, are “needed in order to foster some sense of community beyond our own wee flats.”
Concern about the future of sheltered housing services came to the fore after Angus Council started a consultation with residents about the facilities and services offered, as part of a broad review of the care and support services provided in the county.
Residents and supporters turned out to protest any cuts to the service on October 22.
However, the council has been keen to stress that no decisions have been made.
Speaking previously on the issue councillor Iain Gaul, leader of Angus Council, said: “The purpose of this consultation with sheltered housing tenants is to properly gather their views to give us an accurate picture of what people need, so we can plan for the future and provide the most appropriate type of housing for people’s needs.
“We are only part of the way through this process so while I appreciate that people want to know what will happen all I can say at this stage is that we are listening to tenants and we will keep them informed.”
For the full letter from Mr Coull, Mr Smith and Fowler, turn to page 34.