Leading councillors have promised to listen to families during a consultation as Brighton and Hove City Council looks to save money by closing a day centre for adults with learning disabilities.
The council aims to save £400,000 by closing Wellington House, in Wellington Street, Brighton.
The move comes 10 years after Labour justified the closure of the Belgrave Day Centre, in Portslade, by saying that care would be provided at Wellington House instead.
The proposals were voted through as part of the annual budget-setting process last night (Thursday 26 February) but will still be subject to a 12-week consultation.
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor said that services would be “re-provided” not removed after a consultation with staff and service users.
Labour councillor Mitchie Alexander, the council’s cabinet member for communities, equalities, public health and adult social care, said that she recognised feelings were running high on the proposals.
Councillor Alexander said: “We will only re-commission the day opportunities for those currently attending Wellington House if we are fully satisfied that their needs can be met still with one of our city’s fantastic not-for-profit provider partners.
“I give my word on this. It is not just about making a saving. It is an opportunity to assess what provision people with learning disabilities and their families would like to see offered in the future.”
She promised meetings with parents and carers of young people with learning disabilities to shape future provision.
On the consultation, Councillor Alexander said that it would be in-depth and involve the other six day care providers operating in the city.
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said that she understood that people would feel anxious about any changes to services at Wellington House.
Councillor Sankey said: “Change is never easy and I commit that we will listen and co-produce the future of our learning disability day services with those who use them.
“I want our outcomes to be even better and I think that is something that can be achieved.”
Opposition councillors were critical of the potential closure, with Green councillor Raphael Hill saying: “Labour tells us that they want co-production in the proposals for Wellington House Day Centre closure.
“But that desire for co-production stands in contention with the financial envelope this council operates in and the choice to target this service for cuts.”
Councillor Hill said that service users will lose their longstanding relationships with established staff and some would not receive the support they need.
Fellow Green councillor Kerry Pickett recalled the closure of the Belgrave Day Centre, in Portslade.
And another Green councillor Sue Shanks said that it was surprising that Labour would “fail to protect” the valuable and well-regarded service.
Conservative councillor Alistair McNair said that parents and carers would lose out through the lack of respite care.
Councillor McNair said: “A Labour council, always bashing the private sector, will have to rely on six other providers in the independent sector.
“All for a proposed saving of just £400,000. It’s not just those with a learning difficulty who may lose out but also the parents and carers when they get no respite from caring.”
At a People Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday 19 February, the Brighton and Hove Parent Carers’ Council (PaCC) interim lead Fiona England said that the day centre had capacity for at least 24 people.
The proposed closure would affect 21 adults, mostly in their forties, fifties and sixties.
But 17 eligible young people are due to leave full-time education in the summer and their transition from children’s services to adult social care was already a source of concern. Closure of the day centre would add to that concern.
Mrs England also raised concerns that other service providers lacked the capacity to absorb and meet the need of those currently cared for at Wellington House.
A petition started on the Change.org website – Save Wellington House Learning Disability Day Centre in Brighton and Hove – had more than 1,700 signatures at the time of writing.
Labour listening? Is it April Fools Day yet?
I have just read in this paper that the council have agreed a 4.99% rise in council tax!!!!!! Maybe the 2% ringfenced from this for adult services could be used to keep this centre open!!! Just a thought.
The cost of the adult social care budget is rising rapidly to the point where the 2% ringfenced rise doesn’t leave £400,000 annually spare to keep the centre open. I think there are questions to be asked over whether this cut would in fact lead to a £400,000 saving however.
Nationally, ASC needs recalibrating in both the financial methodology and the practical delivery; the burden it places on councils across the country is staggering.
So how will the 2% ringfenced money be used?
if there is a saving of £400,000 by closing this centre, how much more will the council have to spend to ensure that the users of this centre are adequately supported or won’t they be? Are questions going to be asked as to whether the closure will in fact save £400,000? Also, is the building earmarked for development ? .
Just going from the proposal, alternative provision will be explored, such as through the VSCE sector. The intention there is that VSCE usually has a much wider access to funding streams, different to local authority. If this were to happen, there would likely be no additional costs to the council, as LA no longer pays for staffing, running of the building, etc, but also would likely have 100% business rate relief on the building as well, so you could argue that’s where the “spend” would come from.
Also, if a clean transition to an alternative provider was available, there’s a strong likelihood that the building itself will remain as-is, which makes sense – it’s already set up for the job, right?
Of course, the devil is in the details. I have respect for Cllr. Hill, who always articulates his questions and scrutinises well, and I’m confident he’ll do the same here too.
Proposals voted through and then a consultation is opened! Am I the only one who feels that this process is a bit flawed? This is only window -dressing as the decision has already been made. Shame on every councillor who is involved in this charade.
I agree, the semantics are really confusing. It’s titled closure, but the substance is about seeking alternative provision, with a possibility of closure if every other avenue is exhausted. It’s an important distinction.
The usual Labour disgusting cart-before-horse trashing of democracy.
Closing it, just like the council closed another 5 BHCC care homes in the last year. Shame on BHCC.
“The move comes 10 years after Labour justified the closure of the Belgrave Day Centre, in Portslade, by saying that care would be provided at Wellington House instead.”
£13m for the Beryl Bike scheme plus £295,000 a year until 2030 on the other hand is no problem and now the council are going to add an e-scooter scheme to it and have leafleted the whole city at further cost. Does the Beryl bike scheme even make any money? Or just lose it?
Is it lack of money or lack of morality which is this council’s problem?
Benjamin, I think you’re being too optimistic about both the process and the savings.
The £400,000 cut is already built into the budget set by Brighton & Hove City Council and tied to closing Wellington House. When the saving is pre-agreed, the “consultation” inevitably has limits. That’s why many see this as closure dressed up as transformation.
Shifting provision to the VSCE sector doesn’t make costs disappear — it moves them. The council still has legal duties, still has to commission and monitor care, and still carries the risk if a provider struggles. Business rate relief and grant funding are still public resources in one form or another.
For a relatively small saving in the context of a £1bn budget, disrupting established support for vulnerable adults risks becoming a false economy. Skepticism isn’t semantics — it’s about whether this genuinely protects service users long term.
Hmm…it’s a fair comment, I do favour being optimistic. There’s enough people fulfilling the alternative role. Balanced by this quote from Cllr Taylor:
“But if we can’t do that to the same standard that they currently get, then we won’t proceed.”
The Beryl Bike scheme is still a greater priority to the council than looking after vulnerable adults whichever way you want to cut it.
I believe you’ve been told multiple times that cycles and ASC are separate accounts that don’t interact with each other, Tracy.
They’ll listen. Then ignore and do whatever they want anyway.