YOUR VIEWS: Thor House, a pot of gold, and has the SNP gone ‘rogue’ over planning decisions?

Was Thor House closed to save money and will it actually open again?

Letter from Leslie Sharp, Rogart.

Thor House was a children’s disability respite centre in Thurso, the only respite centre of its description anywhere north of Inverness. This centre served both Caithness and Sutherland and, I dare to envisage, further afield.

It looked after children and young adults with a range of complex needs from those on the autism spectrum, those with cognitive and mobility disabilities and more, and it did so fantastically… until it closed its doors for five years to date.

For those of us who had access to this service before its closure we can attest to the staff’s dedication, professionalism, pro-activeness and passion in caring for the respite residents. So much so that even after the questionable closure of Thor House we remain in contact and the staff themselves, with the natural caring that comes to them, remain interested in the progress of children and young adults that they professionally cared for at Thor House.

My son started to have access to Thor House around 2015 for overnight respite, this included transport to and from Thor House. The transportation factor of this respite is essential for the simple reason that without it the carer would not receive the time that respite would otherwise have given them.

I sent a series of Freedom of Information requests regarding the closure of the facility to Highland Council between 2020 and 2022.

One stated: “Thor House closed its doors in March 2020. In the year prior to this Thor House had an average rate of 76 per cent capacity being used for short breaks, this equates to 589 nights being booked with 773 being available.”

This is hardly representative of a service that the Highland Council describes as experiencing a decrease in demand. Let us not forget that these statistics are only those that received the service, so we must ask ourselves how many were turned away, how many more families went into crises due to being wrongfully assessed or because of funding pressures?

In the following months and years the impact on my family and of other families and carers was of understandable concern.

I sent another Freedom of Information request to the Highland Council on June 22, 2022: “What impact and risk assessment has been performed to assess the removal of Thor House respite facility on children with learning disabilities and can I get a copy of the assessment report?”

Hold on to your underwear because the Highland Council’s response nearly blew the breeks off me; “There has been no impact or risk assessment as respite care services were ceased due to Covid restrictions. Changes to the purpose of the facility to accommodate different requirements were made during lockdown and are still in place, hence the temporary stop to respite care.

“There are no plans to conduct an impact assessment as we hope to reinstate the provision of respite care in the north in the foreseeable future.”

This is an extraordinary statement because it makes it clear that even though the Highland Council ceased an essential service for children with complex needs, they did not have any idea of the impact that the cessation of this essential service would have because there was no risk assessment.

The decision to close Thor house was and remains a point of contention because whilst the FOI states that it was closed due to Covid restrictions, despite asking many questions we have not to date received any definitive answer as to who made the decision to close Thor House.

I want to know who made that decision. Who is accountable?

Just because Thor House closed its doors that does not mean the need for it decreased or it magically disappeared.

This raises another question - was Thor House closed to save money?

The culmination of all this circumspection is that parents, carers and the people they care for had and have an affirmative need for respite.

Given the lack of carers or the lack of carers that can supply the measure of support needed, it is clear that a respite facility like Thor House is needed and should never have been closed.

An honest risk and impact assessment would have found this; indeed, family key workers do know but they too are up against a brick wall in the local authority.

Last year Highland Council said that Thor House would reopen for respite care. Through further correspondence we have learned that Thor House is envisioned to start operating again in March or April of 2025. This is obviously very welcome news and I know of many families already expressing an interest in availability.

Given the closure of Thor House and the period of time elapsed since its closure, I can’t shake off the feeling there will be delays, restrictions or reductions in the range of services. It’s happened before.

Still there is hope, through constant individual and group campaigning from various sources, which have all been community based, we have collectively been able to get our representatives to pressure the executive enough to clearly accept the need for a local authority administered respite provision.

Has that goal been reached? Time will tell in the next several weeks.

No rainbow needed for pot of gold

Letter from Lyndsey Ward, spokeswoman for Communities B4 Power Companies

You don't need a rainbow to find a pot of gold in the Highlands.

Just an iconic estate, usually an absentee landlord, a wealthy multinational wind developer with global investment company shareholders, an insatiable lust for money, a disregard for the natural environment and your neighbours, a complicit government and a bullied, cash strapped and stressed community.

Has the SNP gone ‘rogue’ over planning decisions?

Letter from Denise Davis, Taigh Dubh, Kiltarlity

In the past month Scottish Government ministers, and in particular Gillian Martin MSP, holder of the rather long-winded title 'Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy', have approved two controversial planning applications - The Strath Oykel wind farm and the Dumfries and Galloway pylons and overhead lines.

Both of the proposals were objected to by their regional councils and then recommended refusal by the government appointed reporters.

Both proposals went to public inquiry, which is extremely costly and time-consuming for local residents, the regional councils, and the government. All of this is paid for by tax payers.

Members of planning committees are generally well-educated about planning policy and knowledgeable about their area, and they make decisions based only on planning policy and material considerations.

The government appointed reporters are people who have vast experience of the planning system, often having held high-ranking positions in the planning departments of regional councils.

Yet, for some reason the Scottish Government has decided none of this matters. The knowledge, experience, and expertise of the councillors and the reporters apparently do not outweigh that of Ms. Martin who, prior to this position in government, seems to have had zero experience in the net zero area.

According to Wikipedia, prior to entering politics ‘[Martin] ran her own business in video production and training for the energy sector.

She was the manager of an emergency media response team for oil and gas companies for 10 years.’

As these ten years were spent with oil and gas, I am guessing little of her time was spent discussing renewables, for which she is now at the helm.

Martin’s CV, much like Rachel Reeves’, seems to be lacking in the qualifications, experience, and expertise needed to be in the position and overriding recommendations by those who are genuinely in the know.

In any other place of work, the SNP’s behaviour would be considered rogue and called into question. Why are the other parties not doing this?

Do you agree with the views expressed by these letter writers or have a different viewpoint? Share your view by emailing editor@northern-times.co.uk

---

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.

---