Cheshire East has approved controversial plans to charge the over 85s for a lifeline care alarm system they currently get for free.

At the moment residents who are over 85 and live alone don't pay for the assistive technology (Telecare service) they receive.

The service consists of a range of devices, such as fall detectors or pendant alarms which are triggered when someone needs help.

Members of the council's adults and health committee voted by 10 votes to three to start charging £5 a week for the service for the over 85s, the same that is paid by those under 85.

One councillor has branded the move "false economy" while a Sandbach councillor has defended it saying the decision will "reduce health inequalities across the borough".

Cllr Kathryn Flavell, Councillor for Sandbach Elworth, told Sandbach Nub News: "The new policies will help us reduce health inequalities across the borough.

"It is extremely concerning that there is a 12 year difference in life-expectancy between the more affluent and more deprived areas of the borough.

"The new Cheshire East Council policy will provide free telecare to those who need it based on the ability to pay, not on the basis of age.

"Nobody who needs telecare, but can't afford it, will have to pay, whatever their age.

"Assistive technology can also reduce the reliance on long term care by improving services closer to home, protecting the most vulnerable in our

communities."

Cllr Arthur Moran (Nantwich North & West, told Monday's meeting: "The new system which is recommended, with the charge that we're putting in, is much fairer."

He said it would be means tested and those who couldn't afford to pay wouldn't have to.

But Conservative group leader Janet Clowes (Wybunbury) described the proposal as a 'false economy'.

Referring to the report to the committee, Cllr Clowes said: "There are 12,300 people aged 85 plus in the borough, 43 per cent of which are estimated to fall each year.

"You only need about 30 people to fall, have a hospital admission and to be sent to long term care to actually rack up about £1m – four times the amount it's intended to save through this particular proposal."

She added: "And I think that to say that it is unfair, is extraordinarily naive.

"We will end up paying far more for these people, which actually will direct resources away from those people who are not 85."

Cllr Stewart Gardiner (Knutsford, Con) said the system came about through the Better Care Fund and the objective was to help local authorities and health providers to come up with ways of reducing hospital admissions.

"If you are over 85 and live in Wilmslow or over 85 and living in Crewe, you will still have to go to hospital that's funded from the National Health Service, and the purpose of this scheme is to reduce the pressure on the NHS by reducing the number of people who have to go into hospital with falls," he said.

He added that if someone over 85 could no longer afford the technology, had a fall and spent time in hospital and respite care as a result, that used up NHS funds and 'that means that somebody else won't be able to have an operation'.

Committee chair Jill Rhodes (Crewe North, Lab) repeated that anybody who couldn't afford to pay wouldn't have to pay.

She later said if the over 85s weren't charged, others who did pay might see their fees go up to £8 a week.

Cllr Kathryn Flavell (Sandbach Elworth, Lab) said:

"This really, at the moment, is a case of age discrimination, and what we should be doing is assessing people on their ability to pay, not their age.

"It isn't fair that somebody aged 65, who is in real, real difficulties and has disabilities and low income, has to pay for something that somebody who is 85 and wealthy doesn't pay."

Cllr Carol Bulman (Middlewich, Lab) said a first reaction to taking something away from the over 85s is that it 'sounds mean'.

She said: "But when you think about it a little more deeply, it is a really good service, it was a great idea, it still is a great idea, but it has to be sustainable.

"We want to provide a really good service on this and we are still. At £5 it's still cheaper than any other authority."