Basingstoke care home Roman House earmarked for partial closure by Scope

Basingstoke Gazette: Basingstoke care home earmarked for partial closure Basingstoke care home earmarked for partial closure

PART of a care home in Basingstoke for adults with cerebral palsy is set to close.

Roman House, in Winklebury Way, Winklebury, is one of 11 run by the charity Scope that its board of trustees have earmarked for full or partial closure.

The care home provides residential care for up to 26 people in two self-contained bungalows and another building.

The charity says more disabled people are opting to live in their communities.

Under the plans, the main care home building would close and changes would be made to the two bungalows by 2016.

A statement on its website reads: “In the future, we believe that fewer and fewer disabled people will choose to live in traditional care homes, and there will be less demand for these more old-fashioned services.

“We run a number of services like this, many of which were opened in the 1970s.”

The charity says that the board of trustees made its proposals in September last year and since then it has been in contact with people who are directly affected. Bosses are now drawing up plans for the proposals.

A consultation will take place at each care home and a decision will be made on the future of Roman House towards the end of next year.

Other care homes under threat of closure include two in Salisbury, one in Oxford and another in Kingston-on-Thames.

Frank Lindsell is one of the organisers of a campaign to keep open a Scope care home in Essex, where his 51-year-old daughter lives, and he wants to hear from people affected by the closure threat to Roman House.

To contact the campaign, call 01353 669722.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:37pm Thu 8 May 14

deborah.long14@btinternet.com says...

I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about.
I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about. deborah.long14@btinternet.com
  • Score: 2

7:36am Fri 9 May 14

jonone says...

deborah.long14@btint
ernet.com
wrote:
I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about.
I wouldn't be sad, it isn't closing completely. Better that they reduce costs by closing an unused element and retain funds meet what demand they do have.
[quote][p][bold]deborah.long14@btint ernet.com[/bold] wrote: I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't be sad, it isn't closing completely. Better that they reduce costs by closing an unused element and retain funds meet what demand they do have. jonone
  • Score: 6

11:54am Fri 9 May 14

JJ38JJ says...

Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?
Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly? JJ38JJ
  • Score: -7

2:49pm Fri 9 May 14

Sam_Walker123456 says...

JJ38JJ wrote:
Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?
Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.
[quote][p][bold]JJ38JJ[/bold] wrote: Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?[/p][/quote]Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures. Sam_Walker123456
  • Score: 8

10:06am Mon 12 May 14

JJ38JJ says...

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:
JJ38JJ wrote:
Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?
Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.
There weren't any people trying to keep it open for their loved ones. Part of the home was closed because there was no demand. As for the jobs - it's a care home run for those at risk, not some sort of socialist job creation programme.
[quote][p][bold]Sam_Walker123456[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJ38JJ[/bold] wrote: Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?[/p][/quote]Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.[/p][/quote]There weren't any people trying to keep it open for their loved ones. Part of the home was closed because there was no demand. As for the jobs - it's a care home run for those at risk, not some sort of socialist job creation programme. JJ38JJ
  • Score: -5

11:52am Mon 12 May 14

Buster Preciation says...

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:
JJ38JJ wrote:
Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?
Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.
Ten homes being closed is a different matter - or ten different matters! If they were closed because of lack of funds then your point is valid - but only for those ones. But that is not the case here. In fact if other homes are being closed because of lack of funds then it's a good idea to partially close one that is part empty and redirect the money (and the jobs) to where it is needed.
[quote][p][bold]Sam_Walker123456[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJ38JJ[/bold] wrote: Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?[/p][/quote]Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.[/p][/quote]Ten homes being closed is a different matter - or ten different matters! If they were closed because of lack of funds then your point is valid - but only for those ones. But that is not the case here. In fact if other homes are being closed because of lack of funds then it's a good idea to partially close one that is part empty and redirect the money (and the jobs) to where it is needed. Buster Preciation
  • Score: -7

7:58pm Mon 12 May 14

Best_Name_Ever says...

deborah.long14@btint
ernet.com
wrote:
I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about.
'Trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about'. Always good to have an expert around.
[quote][p][bold]deborah.long14@btint ernet.com[/bold] wrote: I am sad to hear this news, whilst I think it is a good idea to have disabled people living in their own homes, but I feel for those vulnerable adults who rely on their companion and friends who support each other in a community living arrangement. These kind of homes are very much important as part of choice in a living lifestyle, trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about.[/p][/quote]'Trust me I have personal experience I know what I am talking about'. Always good to have an expert around. Best_Name_Ever
  • Score: -7

10:28am Mon 19 May 14

Sam_Walker123456 says...

JJ38JJ wrote:
Sam_Walker123456 wrote:
JJ38JJ wrote:
Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?
Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.
There weren't any people trying to keep it open for their loved ones. Part of the home was closed because there was no demand. As for the jobs - it's a care home run for those at risk, not some sort of socialist job creation programme.
Please read my comment again and you will see that I was not claiming that anyone was trying to keep this particular home open for their loved ones. The phrase 'under threat' was used in the article about 'other care homes' not this one.
As for the jobs at risk I don't understand the relevance of your comment. You asked who was under threat and one answer is those who will lose their jobs - the fact that these jobs are not part of 'some sort of socialist job creation programme' is irrelevant. I did not argue suggest that these jobs should be protected, I just offered an answer to your question.
Sorry for taking so long to get back on this, but The Gazette website has had a glitch which has stopped me loading this article on my laptop until today.
[quote][p][bold]JJ38JJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sam_Walker123456[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JJ38JJ[/bold] wrote: Negative reporting in the extreme. Words like 'under threat' don't actually correlate with the reasons for the closure. There is less demand. So who is under threat exactly?[/p][/quote]Negative commenting in the extreme. You have picked on two words, near the end of a factual, unsensational article, as evidence of negative reporting. There is nothing wrong with this report. I believe about ten homes have already been closed in other parts of the country and the first anyone knew about the proposed closure of one of the homes in Salisbury was via Facebook - hardly responsible action by Scope. As to who is 'under threat', I suggest it is those who are trying to keep homes open for their loved ones and those who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures.[/p][/quote]There weren't any people trying to keep it open for their loved ones. Part of the home was closed because there was no demand. As for the jobs - it's a care home run for those at risk, not some sort of socialist job creation programme.[/p][/quote]Please read my comment again and you will see that I was not claiming that anyone was trying to keep this particular home open for their loved ones. The phrase 'under threat' was used in the article about 'other care homes' not this one. As for the jobs at risk I don't understand the relevance of your comment. You asked who was under threat and one answer is those who will lose their jobs - the fact that these jobs are not part of 'some sort of socialist job creation programme' is irrelevant. I did not argue suggest that these jobs should be protected, I just offered an answer to your question. Sorry for taking so long to get back on this, but The Gazette website has had a glitch which has stopped me loading this article on my laptop until today. Sam_Walker123456
  • Score: 9

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree