Anger as council brings in charges for alarm service

Anger as council brings in charges for alarm service

Anger as council brings in charges for alarm service

SAFETY: David Mease (45171201)

First published in News Worcester News: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

THOUSANDS of pensioners across Worcestershire are being asked to pay for “vital” alarms in their own homes.

About 6,500 people could be affected by a county council bid to save money on a 24-hour alarm service.

The alarms, activated by pulling a cord or pressing a button on a pendant, link to either housing association wardens or specialists working at a Malvern call centre who can contact emergency services.

Until now pensioners on housing benefits were given the service free under a strategy called Supporting People.

Now council chiefs are consulting over a charge – a move which has angered many elderly people.

Ann Jones, aged 83, who lives at Himbleton House sheltered housing complex in St John’s, Worcester, said: “I’ve used it three times this year alone for my heart – it’s a wonderful service. It’s been free until now, I don’t understand it.”

Fellow pensioner Joan Warner, 81, said: “If I’m asked to pay I just can’t afford it.”

Council chiefs have refused to reveal how much money they are thinking of asking for, but say the 6,500 people who get it free are subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of £914,000 a year.

The customers include mainly elderly people, but also some vulnerable under 65s who have a range of disabilities and require a 24-hour alarm.

Some live in their own private properties but many live in homes managed by their nearest housing association or a sheltered complex.

Pensioners not on housing benefits can also apply for a call alarm, and are means tested. Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free.

About 2,000 letters have gone out to customers asking them for views on what they would be prepared to pay.

Elaine Carolan, lead joint commissioning manager, said: “Currently there are different criteria in place to determine whether someone should receive a call alarm funded by Worcestershire County Council.

“This has resulted in people who use a call alarm paying different amounts for the monitoring of their call alarm – some people pay nothing while others pay as much as £4 a week.

“In Worcestershire we hope to move to a system where everyone will have access to the same service at the same price. This could result in some people paying more than they currently do for their call alarm.”

She also said the move was part of a revamp of the alarm systems, which means the old hardwired boxes will be phased out and replaced with modern units that plug into telephone lines.

FACTFILE

  • The call alarm service is free to 6,500 people in Worcestershire who are eligible for housing benefits
  • They get cords placed in rooms of their house and/or a pendant around their neck
  • When activated, an alert goes to a local housing association warden between 8am and 10pm
  • Alerts after 10pm go straight to Worcestershire Telecare, based in Malvern, which has access to family contacts and 999
  • Voiceboxes are also placed in properties so if they fall, they can still hear a voice on the other end
  • People not eligible for housing benefits are means tested for the alarms and can be asked to pay between £1 and £4 a week – there are about 1,000 of these
  • At least 1,400 of the free customers are based in Worcester, and the rest spread around the county
  • Alarms for non-paying customers cost taxpayers £914,000 per year

CASE STUDY

DAVID Mease, 79, who lives in Himbleton House sheltered housing complex in St John’s, Worcester, with his wife Mary, has had a heart attack and a stroke.
The former shipyard worker said the alarm system was a “lifeline” for many pensioners.
“I’ll give you an example – one day it was late at night and I heard this big bang in a room nearby,” he said.
“I pulled the cord and soon enough paramedics turned up – it turned out this woman had taken a nasty fall out of bed and hurt herself.
“She couldn’t reach the cord but it was a good job I reached mine. I’ve had a couple of incidents like that – these alarms are pretty vital. A lot of people won’t be happy with it. They will pack it in rather than face making a payment.
“It’ll be all about who can afford it, rather than on a basis of need. These alarms are a lifeline.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:19am Mon 12 Nov 12

jb says...

Due to all the cuts payments for social care to the elderly and disabled have been slashed and the county council are depending on families, friends, voluntary organisations and charitities to bridge the gap left by the shortfall in budget funding. Also one of their suggestions is to use technology where possible. Now they are going to start charging people for this service when they themselves are promoting it as an alternative to home care support!
What a great social care system we have that puts fear into the elderly, disabled and vulnerable instead of supporting and protecting them.
Due to all the cuts payments for social care to the elderly and disabled have been slashed and the county council are depending on families, friends, voluntary organisations and charitities to bridge the gap left by the shortfall in budget funding. Also one of their suggestions is to use technology where possible. Now they are going to start charging people for this service when they themselves are promoting it as an alternative to home care support! What a great social care system we have that puts fear into the elderly, disabled and vulnerable instead of supporting and protecting them. jb
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Handcart says...

It's not just a cuts story, this. The Supporting People fund was set up under some well-meaning and extraordinarily generous rules dating back to the Labour government. Squillions ended up being allocated to low level support, and it was all FREE! However, this left unfairness and inconsitency so needs to be sorted out. Should freebies go to all? Most people, I think, do not like the idea of winter fuel payments going to older people who are not in the slightest bit 'vulnerable' due to living abroad. If some well-off people pay more, is that not just the same as Income Tax? Of course they only think about it at the same time as embracing 'austerity' so no wonder the actions will be seen as cynical (and Osborne CUT taxes to the richest, remember... )

All support and care services need consistent and fair central funding from a fair taxation system.
It's not just a cuts story, this. The Supporting People fund was set up under some well-meaning and extraordinarily generous rules dating back to the Labour government. Squillions ended up being allocated to low level support, and it was all FREE! However, this left unfairness and inconsitency so needs to be sorted out. Should freebies go to all? Most people, I think, do not like the idea of winter fuel payments going to older people who are not in the slightest bit 'vulnerable' due to living abroad. If some well-off people pay more, is that not just the same as Income Tax? Of course they only think about it at the same time as embracing 'austerity' so no wonder the actions will be seen as cynical (and Osborne CUT taxes to the richest, remember... ) All support and care services need consistent and fair central funding from a fair taxation system. Handcart
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Matthew Jenkins says...

Totally agree JB. Once again the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable and contradict the County Council's promotion of such devices as a justification for other cuts to social care.
According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds.
Totally agree JB. Once again the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable and contradict the County Council's promotion of such devices as a justification for other cuts to social care. According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds. Matthew Jenkins
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Hwicce says...

These things always get very emotive. Of course cuts tend to be on the more vunerable, they are the ones getting the help. You can't cut services to people who don't get them.

As for the case study it proves that technology isn't necesarily the answer - "She couldn’t reach the cord", so if she didn't have a cord it wouldn't have made a difference. David Mease could have used a phone to summon help he didn't have to pull the cord, it was easier for him to use a cord but the outcome would have been the same.
These things always get very emotive. Of course cuts tend to be on the more vunerable, they are the ones getting the help. You can't cut services to people who don't get them. As for the case study it proves that technology isn't necesarily the answer - "She couldn’t reach the cord", so if she didn't have a cord it wouldn't have made a difference. David Mease could have used a phone to summon help he didn't have to pull the cord, it was easier for him to use a cord but the outcome would have been the same. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Samboy says...

Hwicce is spouting all the usual "logic" loved by number crunchers. The service was put in to be used. To write it off by saying he could have used a phone is to negate the purpose of the service. The only logical result of that approach would be complete withdrawal of the service. Early assistance will always pay for itself if one takes hospital treatment and so on into account.
Hwicce is spouting all the usual "logic" loved by number crunchers. The service was put in to be used. To write it off by saying he could have used a phone is to negate the purpose of the service. The only logical result of that approach would be complete withdrawal of the service. Early assistance will always pay for itself if one takes hospital treatment and so on into account. Samboy
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Hack says...

Simple math says that's an average of £140.00 per person per year.
Simple math says that's an average of £140.00 per person per year. Hack
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Hwicce says...

@Samboy - if you read what I said, it says that the service wasn't used as it didn't meet the job. They was nothing about the cost.

As you suggested if the service doesn't work, or there is a better option then yes it should be withdrawn.
@Samboy - if you read what I said, it says that the service wasn't used as it didn't meet the job. They was nothing about the cost. As you suggested if the service doesn't work, or there is a better option then yes it should be withdrawn. Hwicce
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 12 Nov 12

green49 says...

Handcart, after reading your comment its quite clear you have no proper understanding of supporting people, yes it is free but it is for the most vunerable people who have nothing, i have been involved with this since it started, it is an essential service and until you understand or are in need of this sort of help you should not comment.
These personal alarms are a must for infirm and badly disabled people, there have been some pathetic consultation on this and its result is to refuse any change as it will be double the cost it is now and it will be paid in part by the very people who cannot afford it but the Council yet again are ignoring it, as i said before it is beginning to show predjudice against the most vunerable as its there services that are being cut due to incompetance yet again.
Handcart, after reading your comment its quite clear you have no proper understanding of supporting people, yes it is free but it is for the most vunerable people who have nothing, i have been involved with this since it started, it is an essential service and until you understand or are in need of this sort of help you should not comment. These personal alarms are a must for infirm and badly disabled people, there have been some pathetic consultation on this and its result is to refuse any change as it will be double the cost it is now and it will be paid in part by the very people who cannot afford it but the Council yet again are ignoring it, as i said before it is beginning to show predjudice against the most vunerable as its there services that are being cut due to incompetance yet again. green49
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Mon 12 Nov 12

green49 says...

Matthew Jenkins says...
1:27pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Totally agree JB. Once again the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable and contradict the County Council's promotion of such devices as a justification for other cuts to social care.
According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds.

I can confirm that it has saved millions mainly from unscrupulous service providers who are rigoursly monitored as they try to rip off the system, supporting people is one of the few departments that should be totally kept although now understaffed due to cuts again.
Matthew Jenkins says... 1:27pm Mon 12 Nov 12 Totally agree JB. Once again the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable and contradict the County Council's promotion of such devices as a justification for other cuts to social care. According to the Council's own website the Supporting People strategy has actually saved millions of pounds. I can confirm that it has saved millions mainly from unscrupulous service providers who are rigoursly monitored as they try to rip off the system, supporting people is one of the few departments that should be totally kept although now understaffed due to cuts again. green49
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12

biff kirtons says...

i dont think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the worcester news each day i dont think its an unreasonable charge to make.
i dont think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the worcester news each day i dont think its an unreasonable charge to make. biff kirtons
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Matthew Jenkins says...

biff kirtons wrote:
i dont think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the worcester news each day i dont think its an unreasonable charge to make.
If you can't afford it, then it needs to be free.
[quote][p][bold]biff kirtons[/bold] wrote: i dont think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the worcester news each day i dont think its an unreasonable charge to make.[/p][/quote]If you can't afford it, then it needs to be free. Matthew Jenkins
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Mon 12 Nov 12

mayall8808 says...

biff kirtons says...
5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12
I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make.

You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life?
biff kirtons says... 5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12 I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make. You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life? mayall8808
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Mon 12 Nov 12

take a deep breath says...

mayall8808 wrote:
biff kirtons says...
5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12
I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make.

You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life?
I read in the article above that........"Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free".............we
ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA
IR?????.....
[quote][p][bold]mayall8808[/bold] wrote: biff kirtons says... 5:38pm Mon 12 Nov 12 I don't think it is fair that the service is free for some people while others have to pay, even in the same housing complex sometimes. at a daily cost roughly the same as buying the Worcester news each day i don't think its an unreasonable charge to make. You could apply the same logic to care homes then? it seems grossly unfair to have the biggest beer drinking, drug taker, chain smoker in care for free and the person in the next room having to pay about £600 a week because he has worked and done the right thing having paid his way all his life?[/p][/quote]I read in the article above that........"Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free".............we ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA IR?????..... take a deep breath
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12

biff kirtons says...

unfair. the ones who have lived a thrifty life lose out. my point entirely.
unfair. the ones who have lived a thrifty life lose out. my point entirely. biff kirtons
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Mon 12 Nov 12

Biggles says...

Remember the days, or stories of the days, when family used to be expected to look after their own relatives ?
.
And that goes as much towards unmarried mothers, and it does the elderly.
.
I think we may be headed a little towards that, and I'm not sure it is such a bad thing.
Remember the days, or stories of the days, when family used to be expected to look after their own relatives ? . And that goes as much towards unmarried mothers, and it does the elderly. . I think we may be headed a little towards that, and I'm not sure it is such a bad thing. Biggles
  • Score: 0

12:45am Tue 13 Nov 12

Jabbadad says...

Biggles the differences these days are that there are people having care at home that years ago would have been in Hospital costing £thousands per week. And don't forget that for many Care in the Home means as little as 3 visits of 15 minutes or less per day and sometimes over a 5 day week and for those with family members of even friends caring for free the rest of the time, and for those who are completely on their own what happens to them?.
The big push for Care in the Home was just to save money, and getting relatives to carry out unpaid care, and to avoid placing older Frail people in residential care homes again based upon costs.
Now there has been a U TURN away from Care in the Home, whereby the costs used as a guide will be the value of a now much lower cost of Residential Care Home places.
What is not being explained is that those who are getting large payments for Care in the Home, have illnesses that would need Nursing Care Home places at £1,000 and more per week, or hospitalisation at £3,000 per week.
They aren't saying too loudly that members of a family might be asked to contribute towards future Care costs, and that the family homes would be included as assets to pay for these additional costs. Yes there is a shortage of money available to local government, but this and previous governments continually put others in front of our own people.
Until the UK address immigration and massive Tax Evasion by the rich and multi nationals, we won't move towards solving our own problems.
Biggles the differences these days are that there are people having care at home that years ago would have been in Hospital costing £thousands per week. And don't forget that for many Care in the Home means as little as 3 visits of 15 minutes or less per day and sometimes over a 5 day week and for those with family members of even friends caring for free the rest of the time, and for those who are completely on their own what happens to them?. The big push for Care in the Home was just to save money, and getting relatives to carry out unpaid care, and to avoid placing older Frail people in residential care homes again based upon costs. Now there has been a U TURN away from Care in the Home, whereby the costs used as a guide will be the value of a now much lower cost of Residential Care Home places. What is not being explained is that those who are getting large payments for Care in the Home, have illnesses that would need Nursing Care Home places at £1,000 and more per week, or hospitalisation at £3,000 per week. They aren't saying too loudly that members of a family might be asked to contribute towards future Care costs, and that the family homes would be included as assets to pay for these additional costs. Yes there is a shortage of money available to local government, but this and previous governments continually put others in front of our own people. Until the UK address immigration and massive Tax Evasion by the rich and multi nationals, we won't move towards solving our own problems. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

7:08am Tue 13 Nov 12

mayall8808 says...

I read in the article above that........"Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free".............we

ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA

IR?????.....

It is all means tested and thats why there is a difference it is based on ability to pay, yes its not a great system but at least the most vunerable get help.
I read in the article above that........"Council chiefs say many of the fee-payers fork out between £1 and £4 a week, which is unfair when so many get it for free".............we ll, tell the councils chiefs I pay my council tax and there are hundreds in this town who don't because of our benefit systems. And, I pay my rent and there are hundreds who have theirs paid for them, again because of our benefits system.....FAIR/UNFA IR?????..... It is all means tested and thats why there is a difference it is based on ability to pay, yes its not a great system but at least the most vunerable get help. mayall8808
  • Score: 0

8:57am Tue 13 Nov 12

green49 says...

biff kirtons says...
7:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12
unfair. the ones who have lived a thrifty life lose out. my point entirely.

Quite agree but any suggestions on how we make it fair to all?
I say you get basic help and pension if you contribute nothing to the system, there should be another level of help if you work and do the right things that are expected of you,
After that level then you may have been lucky enough to have money and can fend for yourself but anyway you look at it it needs to be the fair factor to all in the end.
biff kirtons says... 7:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12 unfair. the ones who have lived a thrifty life lose out. my point entirely. Quite agree but any suggestions on how we make it fair to all? I say you get basic help and pension if you contribute nothing to the system, there should be another level of help if you work and do the right things that are expected of you, After that level then you may have been lucky enough to have money and can fend for yourself but anyway you look at it it needs to be the fair factor to all in the end. green49
  • Score: 0

11:40am Tue 13 Nov 12

Jabbadad says...

Those who have for many years worked and in lived rented property have contributed in NIS and tax equal to their wages, unlike those of us who had mortgages and enjoyed tax relief on them and for private pension payments.
Now with essential services such as Telecare, which by the way was heralded as the safety net for those having / needing care, and who the politicians wanted to stay in their homes, and these are all means tested, would suggest that the financially better off who begrudge these less well off people any Benefits are humbugs of the first order. I don't get financial help (other than my State Pension) but I don't begrudge older people any help at all.
There may be a few isolated cases, but these are a lot less than those who have got through life not paying the full entitlement.
And if any of you think that if money's which are taken off older people will come to you, just dream on.
Do you think that politicians and civil servants who make huge mistakes costing we tax payers millions, are held responsible, dream on. One reason why there isn't enough money to go around is due to this country being run by A BUNCH OF AMATEURS. Who simply walk away from the mess they cause, and sometimes get a promotion.
When did we see any politician or senior civil servant get the push for crass bad judgement?
Those who have for many years worked and in lived rented property have contributed in NIS and tax equal to their wages, unlike those of us who had mortgages and enjoyed tax relief on them and for private pension payments. Now with essential services such as Telecare, which by the way was heralded as the safety net for those having / needing care, and who the politicians wanted to stay in their homes, and these are all means tested, would suggest that the financially better off who begrudge these less well off people any Benefits are humbugs of the first order. I don't get financial help (other than my State Pension) but I don't begrudge older people any help at all. There may be a few isolated cases, but these are a lot less than those who have got through life not paying the full entitlement. And if any of you think that if money's which are taken off older people will come to you, just dream on. Do you think that politicians and civil servants who make huge mistakes costing we tax payers millions, are held responsible, dream on. One reason why there isn't enough money to go around is due to this country being run by A BUNCH OF AMATEURS. Who simply walk away from the mess they cause, and sometimes get a promotion. When did we see any politician or senior civil servant get the push for crass bad judgement? Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Handcart says...

Cuts to housing benefit leave more cost on the poor as well. Any kind of preventitive service should be provided when possible. The good news is there are lots of other gadgets and things available - often for free. There have been charges on care in the home for years but they have mostly gone one way - up.

I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'.

PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still...
Cuts to housing benefit leave more cost on the poor as well. Any kind of preventitive service should be provided when possible. The good news is there are lots of other gadgets and things available - often for free. There have been charges on care in the home for years but they have mostly gone one way - up. I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'. PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still... Handcart
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Handcart says...

Cuts to housing benefit leave more cost on the poor as well. Any kind of preventitive service should be provided when possible. The good news is there are lots of other gadgets and things available - often for free. There have been charges on care in the home for years but they have mostly gone one way - up.

I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'.

PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still...
Cuts to housing benefit leave more cost on the poor as well. Any kind of preventitive service should be provided when possible. The good news is there are lots of other gadgets and things available - often for free. There have been charges on care in the home for years but they have mostly gone one way - up. I don't recognise Jabbadad's guess of £1000 per week being saved by (cheaper) care at home. There is simple maths going in to this - if it's cheaper in a care home for older or younger, this is the rate that will be paid - and it won't cover a place in most care homes, sadly. If you want more expensive care, family 'top-up'. PS Green49 - please continue to put your views here, as I intend to. It's not a free country, I know, but still... Handcart
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

thebest1 says...

I'm disabled and have a emergency alarm pendant. which goes through my landline. But it don't work if there is a fault on the bt network. As my phone network was 2 weeks ago and even told them i had a emergency alarm. they didn't fix it till the monday. Good job nothing happened to me, but that's not the point. I rely on it.
I'm disabled and have a emergency alarm pendant. which goes through my landline. But it don't work if there is a fault on the bt network. As my phone network was 2 weeks ago and even told them i had a emergency alarm. they didn't fix it till the monday. Good job nothing happened to me, but that's not the point. I rely on it. thebest1
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Wed 14 Nov 12

thebest1 says...

the alarms run by supporting people are for all ages whether your disabled or pensioners.
the alarms run by supporting people are for all ages whether your disabled or pensioners. thebest1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree