I HAVE opposed the closure of county council-owned residential homes for years. I was elected to DCC in 1997 on a ticket that opposed the proposals being put forward then by the Conservative-run Council. Now it is happening again. I know from personal experience what it is like to look after people whose health is failing, both physical and mental. I know that those who are doing that now, for their parents, children, friends, and partners, have neither the time nor the energy left over from that task to protest in detail about the current proposals. I was sorry to see that our MP, Mel Stride, ignored the issue in his weekly column, although the council blames the government Mr Stride supports for the need to take the decision. County Councillor Kevin Ball supports the decision. He, too, represents the same party that is blamed as the cause of having to undertake these closures. Shouldn't they be helping us to mobilise our opposition, to make the reasons for that opposition clear to those who are making the decision or causing it to be made? Where else do we look for allies? My life has been affected negatively by these proposals. I am happy to make that clear. When my husband needed finally to move into residential care earlier this year, we could not place him at Wardhayes as was our choice, because they were already being warned of impending closure. He had received excellent care there in the Re-ablement Unit after a fall; this is an NHS facility, designed to get people moving again ready to return home after hospital, with specialist support. It enables people to leave hospital and free up beds for those who need nursing care. Those just needing more intense work on their mobility can be helped at Wardhayes. How will people receive this help if Wardhayes is closed? Will they stay in hospital? They certainly cannot receive the same physical support and assistance at home. How is losing this facility a good idea? Wardhayes has a specialist Dementia treatment unit. Where will the replacement beds be found for the residents who need now, and will in future need, those services? Dementia is a growing problem in our communities. We need to be increasing our specialist provision, not reducing it. Converting all of Wardhayes to a dedicated Dementia Unit would be a more sensible proposal than closing it. The staff there are excellent, all well-trained and dedicated. Where will they find jobs? In shops and supermarkets? There is no proposal to build new Homes, so their expertise will be lost. What financial sense does that make? I could not place my husband in residential care locally and now have to face the cost of travelling to see him 15 miles away, spending time travelling which I could have spent with him. Does this sound like a solution for a caring community? We in rural areas suffer all the time from decisions made by people with no understanding of life without the facilities of large towns and cities. We need local provision. Our own democratically elected representatives at all levels should be putting our side of the story. Do they have the courage and the will to join the fight? This is a local issue, and affects only a few dozen people here, today. But it is an issue that is repeated all over the country, and as we all grow older, or have family members who have greater needs than most, we will need to revise our attitude to how we look after them. Let's start now, by fighting for Lyric House, the Poppy Day Centre, and all the facilities offered at Wardhayes. Thank you to the Times for highlighting the issue. Lesley Whittaker Portugal Way Okehampton WHILE the current financial funding position is noted, there is a need to provide an integrated health and social care solution to the increasing demands generated by a longer life expectancy, improved health care and additional positive contributory factors. This is not a single factor issue, as the day care facilities are to close thereby increasing the denial of support to both carers and patients alike. While it may be stated that the impact assessments upon which they were made justifies their closure, it is abundantly clear that they were ill–conceived and certainly not fit for purpose. The use of these suggested alternative sites singularly fails to consider privacy, dignity, provision of trained staff and the additional factors relating to creating a future problem as respite for both carers and patients may require future hospitalisation on an already stretched hospital.   The 'family friendly' ambience generated by residents of both residential homes and day care centres is morally defective and certainly upsetting to those users of the service, resulting in additional hardship and upset to a disadvantaged section of our society. Let us not be judged on our disregard for those contributors to our society who in their advancing years now rely on us to provide the very basic compassion and lifestyle that they deserve and have earned. James Bradley Okehampton