Decision Maker: Buchan Area Committee

Outcome: For Determination

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: June 24, 2025

Purpose: To comment on proposals from the Sheltered Housing Review that affect the Buchan area.

Content: Agreed (1) to hear 2 requests to speak, (2) to provide following comments to Communities Cttee (a) having raised issue that IIA for Cantlay Court makes reference to where there are alternative facilities in town centre locations, to note that there are no town centre complexes in the Buchan area, (b) to highlight that these proposals impact on a wide-range of issues, such as the tenants making visits to GP practises and accessing health care that they have become familiar and comfortable with, and that these issues must be taken into consideration, (c) in considering Place, the Council needs to be careful not to dismiss rural facilities outwith a town centre, (d) in having now been advised that alternative models are being considered, that the closure proposals should be delayed until the alternative models have been put before all Members for consideration and comment, (e) that the process for dealing with these proposals was not good and has caused great stress for the tenants who remain confused, this needs to be borne in mind and addressed as the situation moves forward, (f) in relation to Cantlay Court, Cruden Bay (i) that communication between the Council and tenants should have been dealt with better and with more respect by way of personal communication to each individual tenant, (ii) that the public engagement sessions should have been advertised in a way that allowed sufficient time for people to learn about them and which would have likely resulted in a better turnout, (iii) to highlight the stress and concern of how these proposals have impacted on tenants given many of them have always lived in Cruden Bay and want to continue to stay in Cruden Bay given their families, friends and support networks are there and they feel that they are being forced out of a community that they are part of, and (iv) for these reasons Cantlay Court should remain open, (g) in relation to Forbes Court, New Pitsligo (i) at this time Members do not have sufficient information to make a decision, (ii) due to reduced hours at Strichen Health Centre, more people are having to be seen at the New Pitsligo Practise, and this presents a problem in that New Pitsligo is not well served by local transportation, (iii) New Pitsligo is growing in terms of community spirit and, in time, there could be more demand for this type of accommodation, particularly with better advertising of vacancies; it may be premature to close this facility and therefore the proposal for closure should be taken ‘off the table’ and the alternative model referred to, along with stats and actual facts, should be shared with Members to allow due consideration, (iv) whilst acknowledging that budgets have to be considered, there should be more emphasis on Place when decisions, such as these, are being taken, and (h) in relation to Renouard Court, St Fergus, having met with the tenants local Members felt that the residents have now accepted the proposals put forward