THERE were some caustic exchanges this evening between councillors and council officers as the controversial subject of charging elderly residents at some of Thurrock's sheltered housing complexes for the replacement of security gates was discussed.

In the build-up to tonight's (Tuesday, 17 November) meeting of Thurrock Council's Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee there has been considerable debate about the subject.

At tonight's meeting West Thurrock ward councillor Victoria Holloway was invited to address the meeting and made an impassioned plea that the council found the money to fund the gates at four complexes.

She ran into an apparent brick wall as the council's Assistant Director of Housing Carol Hinvest put up a staunch defence of the council's policy – and Corporate Director of Adults, Health and Housing Roger Harris told the committee it was a situation where the council had to make 'difficult choices'.

Cllr Holloway, whose West Thurrock ward includes a couple of the complexes, told officers that she was concerned that local councillors had not been listened to. Cllr Holloway told the committee that it the council would be condemned by public opinion if it could not find £90,000 out of a budget of £50 million to pay for new security gates. She said: "It's not a lot of money to protect our older people.

"My residents were not given an option, they either had to pay or not. It's atrocious."

She won support from Cllr Lynn Worrall who told the committee: "For the people that live in these homes, the gates provide a benefit. I don't know anybody in Thurrock who doesn't think this should be paid for."

And she drew a comparison with the amount of money the council had said it was committed to spending on maintenance of garages, saying: "Private people rent out garages. We can't protect our old people but we can spend money on people who rent out garages to keep their stuff for boot sales. I am sorry I can't agree to this."

advertisement

Mr Harris said: "We have not yet completed our full consultation on all the sites. At the moment our recommendation is based on the evidence and feedback we have received. But the residents are prepared to pay the service charge at the end of the day and we have to make some choices.

"We will take this back to the portfolio holder."

Cllr Spillman said the garages were a commercial benefit to the council so were different but he added: "I thank Cllr Holloway for her impassioned representation for her residents. What do we lose if we decide to spend the money on these gates, what is the choice? Why has this decision been made? What are we now paying for that we wouldn't have been able to pay for if we didn't spend the money on the gates. Is the council's position that they don't think there is going to be any risk to residents?"

"Clearly we would not do this if we thought there was any risk," said Mr Harris.

A clearly aggravated Ms Hinvest said: "This year we started a new decorating programme which is important. We said that a priority was to spend more money of door entry systems. It's important to understand that only 1.1 per cent of our residents are covered by these gates."

Cllr Joy Redsell suggested that the council looked at more innovative ways to get the security gates replaced, possibly through sponsorship."

The committee decided to leave the matter to the discretion of officers and the portfolio holder.