Alston Moor Parish Council
Grisedale Croft Care Home — at a glance
What is wrong with the consultation, and with the report now before the Committee.
The two things to check first
- On corrected information, refurbishment was the most supported option. Table 5, report page 16: in Part 2 — the only phase in which consultees knew that refurbishment means the home closing for 12 to 24 months — refurbishment led the preferred option by 66 to 58. The report never says so. Its 10 key messages contain no figures at all.
- Paragraph 3.2 of the covering report says the consultation ran “from 14th May 2026 – 19th July 2026”. It closed on 19 August 2026, and was originally advertised to close on 5 August 2026. 19 July was never the closing date at any point.
Sixteen findings, all from the authority’s own documents
“Where” gives the page of the consultation report or of the reports pack for this meeting. “App.” refers to the Applethwaite Green Care Home report at agenda item 7.
| Finding | Detail | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Bias on page one | States the three disputed premises — building, occupancy, cost — as fact, then four paragraphs later says it “does not attempt to determine the accuracy” of any claim. The same three bullets appear word for word in the Applethwaite Green report. | Report p.3 |
| Refurbishment led, unreported | Part 2: refurbishment 66, preferred option 58. On-site options together 73 to 58. Never stated. | Table 5, p.16 |
| Alston Moor’s own residents | Of 180 local responses, options keeping care on the site total 87 against 82 for the preferred option. Never stated. | Table 7, p.17 |
| Only one of 61 changed | Of 61 Part 1 responses, exactly one was updated — and kept the same preference. Those 61 are what keeps the preferred option ahead overall. | Tables 3–5 |
| Tables do not add up | Table 7 total row says 96 and 10; the columns — and its own printed percentages — give 95 and 11. Table 2 accounts for only 197 of the 199 responses. “93% were aged 45 or above” is 94%. No Table 8; two Table 10s. Every Applethwaite Green table reconciles. | Report pp.15–19 |
| No figures at all | No occupancy figure, no cost, no referral data — not one pound sign in 59 pages — though the report names these as the most contested evidence. | Throughout |
| Survey could not record views | The authority states the survey “did not allow for respondents to select none of the five options, or choose multiple options”. Those responses became “Other”. | Report p.14 |
| Drop-in notes never produced | Attendees were told their views would be included and officers were seen taking notes. No note has been produced, nothing from the sessions is in the report, and a report promised to the Parish Clerk never arrived. The report says the comments “were not captured” — yet the executive summary lists the drop-ins as a source of evidence. | Report pp.4, 10 |
| Attendance is boilerplate | “attended by between 10 and 25 people” is word-for-word identical in both reports, for 12 events in two communities. Over a hundred came to the first Alston drop-in; Garrigill drew under 10. | Report p.9; App. p.10 |
| Public meeting understated | Report says 78. The hall holds 93 chairs; 80 were set out, more brought out as people arrived, every one in use, and people still standing in the doorway, round the edge of the room and on the landing. It cannot have been 78. | Report p.13 |
| No resident responded | None of the 199 came from a resident of the home. Five of seven relatives chose refurbishment. At Applethwaite Green five residents responded. | Tables 6, 7 |
| Voices left out of the count | Healthwatch (40 people) and N-Compass excluded from the analysis and absent from the papers; 20 detailed written responses excluded from every table; this Parish Council’s formal response counts as zero. | Report pp.14, 19, 54 |
| Staff: four of four for the closure option | All four Grisedale Croft staff who responded chose the authority’s preferred option. At Applethwaite Green, seven of eight chose refurbishment. Neither report records how staff were consulted, what was said, or anything from former staff. | Report p.18; App. p.18 |
| Both MPs missing | Markus Campbell-Savours MP corresponded and it is on the portal; Tim Farron MP wrote to Cabinet members supporting Grisedale Croft. Neither appears in the report — though Tim Farron has a named section in the Applethwaite Green report. | Report p.4; App. pp.62–63 |
| No equality assessment here | All deferred to the Cabinet paper the authority says the Committee will not see — yet the report quotes the Parish Council’s challenge that it fails section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The 2 July assessment set its own review date at 20 August; the promised revision has never appeared. | Pack p.6; report p.52 |
| 27 documents, none here | “Background Documents” is blank and “Appendices: N/A”, while the consultation portal now carries 27 supporting documents, including the MP’s correspondence and both independent reports. | Pack p.7 |
Two homes, one Cabinet decision, two standards
Grisedale Croft Care Home in Alston and Applethwaite Green Care Home in Windermere were decided at the same Cabinet meeting.
| Grisedale Croft, Alston | Applethwaite Green, Windermere | |
|---|---|---|
| Preferred option named | Yes — and still on the live consultation page today | No — “No decisions have been taken about the final outcome”. Its report explains that Cabinet held a preference and chose not to state it publicly |
| The community’s phased-refurbishment idea | Recorded as “Other”: no name, no theme, no appendix | Named “Option 1.5”: its own row in every table, its own theme, its own key message, its own appendix |
| Refurbishment cost | £2.5m–£3.0m, and no survey of the building is held | £2.5m–£3.0m — the same figure, a different building 50 miles away |
| Costing method | No figures given, so nothing can be checked | Report states that disclosure “confirmed” self-funder income was excluded and gross rather than net costs were used |
| The MP | Correspondence published on the portal; not mentioned in the report | Named subsection, quoted |
| The Committee’s feedback | “can be included in the decision paper” | “will be included in the decision paper” |
| Response rate | About 10% of the whole population | 1.8% of the two wards |
What we ask the Committee to do
- Ask how a closing date this consultation never had came to be printed, what else was checked, and whether a corrected report will be published before Cabinet.
- Ask why a preferred option was named for Alston Moor and expressly not for Windermere, decided at the same Cabinet meeting.
- Ask that the 13 October Cabinet decision be deferred until a corrected report, the promised equality assessments, and the occupancy, referral and net cost figures exist.
- Require the site, cost, timetable and funding for the preferred option — or a plain statement that none exists — and an explanation of the extra condition “and it is financially viable” on the consultation page.
- Require a building-specific survey and a costed phased refurbishment that keeps residents on site.
- Ask that work with NHS partners on an integrated bed base begin now: it is needed under every option and has not started.
- Amend the Committee’s own recommendation 2.1 so that its feedback will be included in the Cabinet paper, as it is for Applethwaite Green.
- Refer the conduct of this consultation to the authority’s Monitoring Officer.
In a sentence
Of 199 responses, one supported closure, and when people were finally given correct information they asked for Grisedale Croft to be refurbished. Alston Moor has already given its answer.
We ask that it be counted properly, that the decision be taken on a report that is accurate and complete, and that the home be kept and improved rather than reduced.