AN INQUIRY into the closure of an eating disorder clinic was branded "fundamentally flawed" after a government minister pulled the rug from under campaigners fighting to save it, claim health watchdogs.
The shutdown of Burnley Health Trust's unit at Reedley is subject to public consultation and a final decision by East Lancashire Health Authority.
But Community Health Council members believe a letter from Health Minister Tessa Jowell - whose department may be asked to make a final ruling - stating there was "no realistic alternative" to closure, compromised and prejudged the debate.
The group was also furious with the health authority, claiming patients and their families had not been directly consulted.
CHC chairman Frank Clifford said today: "Consultation has six weeks to run, but I now think the whole thing is flawed and nothing short of a cosmetic exercise.
"Although Tessa Jowell will not be directly involved in any decision, her letter sends out the wrong message and will make people feel there no point in voicing their views."
Coun Clifford added: "I was amazed to learn that people at the very heart of the issue had not been asked by the health authority to respond - we will ensure they get that opportunity now."
In a letter to Burnley MP Peter Pike, Tessa Jowell said she appreciated the disappointment which many felt at the closure of the loss-making inpatient service which had clearly proved beneficial to a number of people over the years.
The minister added: "I am satisfied that the Trust has given this matter very careful consideration and has responded to a change in circumstances which left it with no realistic alternative."
The Health Trust decided to close the converted semi-detached house after hearing patient numbers had plummeted and the unit was heading for a £240,000 deficit.
Managers said closure was inevitable to protect other mental health services. But consultation was ordered after the Community Health Council objected to closure, claiming it marked a major change in service provision and should be subject to formal public scrutiny.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article