A petition has been started, urging the council to scrap its plan to close a day care centre that families said was a lifeline.
More than 1,500 people have already signed the petition on Change.org, calling on Brighton and Hove City Council “to protect this essential specialist service for adults with complex learning disabilities”.
The council said that the proposed closure would save £400,000 a year but campaigners said that the most vulnerable members of our community should not be “forced to pay the price for budget cuts”.
The petition said: “This is the last remaining council-run day centre for adults with learning disabilities and complex needs in Brighton and Hove. Wellington House is not just a building – it is a lifeline.”
Some have said that if the day centre were to close, it could prove to be a false economy, with parents and partners and family members unable to continue as unpaid carers.
In each case, the council could face having to pay a much bigger bill for care than is currently the case.
Councillors were told last week that the Wellington House day centre cost more per head than those run by charities or private providers.
Those receiving care could be given “personalised budgets” but councillors were told that the sums involved were often too little to buy adequate care.
Living costs locally meant that fewer carers could afford to live and work here than in some other parts of the country and there were shortages of suitable staff.
This would mean that the proposed closure of Wellington House would be “a disaster for our city”, the petition said, and the community would lose “expertise that can’t be replaced”.
It said: “Wellington House supports adults with high-level complex needs and challenging behaviour. The staff are specialists in de-escalation and safety. Independent providers are often unable or unwilling to take on this level of care.
“Preventing family breakdown: For parents and sibling carers, Wellington House provides the only reliable respite in their week. Without it, many families will reach a breaking point, leading to the collapse of home care arrangements.
“A false economy: Closing this centre to save money today will cost the taxpayer more tomorrow. When these placements fail, the council will be forced to fund expensive emergency out-of-area residential care.
“The proposals to close the centre are due to be … voted on at the budget meeting on Thursday 26 February but there has been no … opportunity for impacted families or local residents to have their say.
“We need to show the council that the people of Brighton and Hove value dignity and safety over short-term savings.”
The Parent Carers’ Council (PaCC) shared its concerns with councillors last week in a position paper.
It said: “PaCC continues to share the high levels of parent carer concerns around the significant lack of equitable social care provision for children and young people with learning disabilities and high support needs in the city.”
PaCC representative Fiona England said that the council had said that there were alternatives to Wellington House but they did not have capacity for more people or, in pone case, for the level of care required.
Mrs England also said that more than a dozen young people were due to leave full-time education in the summer and the need for services at Wellington House would be even greater.
The PaCC position paper warned that the council could save £400,000 this year and find itself lumbered with a far more expensive “costly crisis model going forward”.
The council promised needs assessments for all the individuals who would be affected but PaCC echoed independent watchdog findings that the council was running behind with its current assessment caseload.
PaCC also said that the risk of losing highly skilled staff was a concern and added: “Direct payments as a solution to meet social care needs remain problematic.
“Families cannot recruit Pas (personal assistants), leaving statutory assessed needs unmet. Families feed back that they want regular social opportunities for their adult children.
“Overdue adult annual social care assessments mean up-to-date info on statutory provision for adults with high support needs waiting on a review is unavailable including young people with 1:1 and 2:1 support leaving education in July 2026.”
To sign the petition, click here.
The decision to save £400,000 by closing Wellington House is due to be taken at the annual budget council meeting on Thursday (26 February).
It would be followed by a 12-week consultation which PaCC said was too short, given the complexities, and which some councillors said they feared would be a foregone conclusion if the saving was voted through as part of the budget.
It’s not closing, though…it’s been fairly clear that the aim is to outsource to a different provider, so I’m not sure what the petition is trying to achieve?
The council budget papers describe it as “the closure and reprovision of Wellington House Day Options”. See page 342 at the link …
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/g11988/Public%20reports%20pack%2026th-Feb-2026%2016.30%20Council.pdf?T=10
If, for example, the council goes down the personal budgets route, it will be the parents and carers who effectively have to arrange the reprovision.
There is no guarantee either that any reprovision will use the current building and staff, even though demand for the service is expected to increase in July.
In addition, carers have warned that it will break up longstanding relationships, with carers and peers, for some of the most vulnerable people in Brighton and Hove who may not understand what is happening and why.
One important point in the proposal is that this is framed as a recommissioning rather than a straight withdrawal of service. On page 343 it states:
“The proposal to recommission this service will be included within the draft Council Budget proposals for the financial year 2026/27.”
That suggests an intention to reassess needs and secure alternative provision, rather than close without replacement. That said, the risks around disruption, anxiety and continuity are very real. Personally, I would have preferred to see a clear handover and recommissioning pathway set out before closure, ideally retaining the same staff and, if feasible, staying in the same building, precisely to reduce the risk of interruption.
Reading the petition, and what carers have warned, it seems to me that much of the concern is about continuity of service rather than the principle of change itself.
Benjamin makes a really important contribution to this debate. He’s clearly taken the time to read the budget papers properly and distinguish between “closure” and “recommissioning”, which are not the same thing in council terms.
His point about page references and the wording around recommissioning shows real attention to detail. Too often these discussions get reduced to headlines, but he’s highlighted the nuance: the stated intention is to reassess and reprovision, not simply withdraw support altogether.
At the same time, he also acknowledges the genuine risks around disruption and continuity, which is exactly where many families’ fears lie. That balance — careful reading of the documents alongside recognition of real-world impact — is refreshing to see in the comments section.
Franc is right in what he is saying, though. There are risks with recommissioning, especially if there is no guarantee about the continuation of the venue or service providers; routine can be a really important aspect for service users.
Expect the consultation with staff and carers to start very soon. This is a done deal. All the burden is about to be placed on those who are least able to shoulder it. Those affected are the voiceless. Whatever weasel words the council cares to use, this is a calculated cruelty, taking advantage of the weakest in society and their carers, those who have sacrificed so much, out of love and duty, minimising the burden on the state. They are being betrayed by callous Labour and a stone-heaeted council and the carers know it.