Despite opposition and protests, cabinet members are being advised to close Wellington House Day Centre in Brighton.
A report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet, which is due to meet on Thursday (17 September), recommends a “carefully managed transition” to alternative providers for the 21 people using the centre.
Campaigners are planning to protest outside Hove Town Hall from 10am next Thursday before the cabinet meeting which is due to start at 10.30am.
During a 12-week public consultation held from April to June, families said that it was impossible to put a price on the friendships and social connections built up among the 21 vulnerable adults and the staff who care for them.
Eight of the 21 adults with learning disabilities are described as having “complex behavioural support needs”.
Some of the group are autistic and have additional needs including communication difficulties, sensory processing differences, epilepsy and sight loss, requiring high levels of support. Other people using the service have complex health and mobility needs.
Responses from a survey carried out by the disability advocacy service Speak Out during drop-in visits are included in the report to the council’s cabinet.
Speak Out described those who were aware of the proposals as “very discontent”. One respondent, whose details were not included in the report, said: “It’s unfair to take away community services from vulnerable people.
“They go there for a reason so telling them to go somewhere else does not make up for the injustice.
“It will save the council money but the cost will be transferred to charities who are already struggling. It is heartless.”
Speak Out engagement co-ordinator Joe Jones said that the themes of unfairness and the community left behind arose frequently.
His report said: “This is emblematic of the community’s response to cuts but it also speaks to members’ own experiences of change and precarity.
“Secondarily, there is a general suspicion that there are no equivalent services available in the area to meet service users’ needs, with one respondent emphasising the strain on charity services.”
He noted that those who did not feel strongly did not respond to the survey
Closing the day centre has been on the cards at least since councillors voted for a £400,000 saving when they set the council’s budget in February.
But a report to the People Overview and Scrutiny Committee said that the sums weren’t adding up, with savings forecast to be less than £340,000 a year.
The report to the council’s cabinet said that the cost of delivering services to the 21 individuals was £244 a day and the council’s costs were higher than the external providers.
The figure included the nominal cost of “central support services such as HR, finance, IT, legal and governance requirements”.
The council’s director of adult social care, Steve Hook, told councillors at a special committee meeting last Friday (4 September) that alternative providers ranged from £60 to £199 a day, reflecting different needs.
A council notice said that it had awarded five-year contracts worth £12.8 million for day services from Tuesday 1 September to the end of August 2031. Providers could be given a three-year contract extension to 2034.
Spread over eight years, the cost would be £1.6 million a year, twice the current £803,000-a-year cost of running Wellington House, although the contracts cater for dozens more adult than the 21 at the day centre.
The contracts are “spot purchase” – the same type that Labour blamed for the spiralling overspends on temporary and emergency housing.
They have been awarded to nine providers
- Achieve Together Limited
- Down Syndrome Development Trust
- The Grace Eyre Foundation
- Independent Lives (Disability)
- Rocket Artists Studios Community Interest Company
- Salutem LD Bidco IV Limited
- Surrey Choices Limited
- Team Domenica
- Headway Sussex Limited
The report to the council’s cabinet described the Wellington House building as “not fit for purpose”, with the report to the scrutiny committee saying that the day centre’s overall running costs were £803,000 a year.
Mr Hook said that the bill for repairs and maintenance totalled £74,000 in 2023-24, £84,500 in 2024-25 and £96,500 in 2025-26.
The report to council’s cabinet said: “The building is not considered fit for purpose as a contemporary day opportunities facility.
“A substantial Victorian building, it was not designed to support the range and complexity of needs seen today and would require significant investment to adapt it to modern standards.
“The ageing infrastructure also requires increasing levels of maintenance, reducing the flexibility and efficiency of service delivery and limiting the building’s capacity to meet future requirements.”
The cabinet meeting is due to start at 10.30am on Thursday 17 September at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast.
It would appear that the building has been managed to decline as the structure is basically sound. If it were not, the school next door would have been closed. Perhaps that is on the agenda further down the line?
There are no savings to be gained from closing this facility, indeed it will undoubtedly increase expenditure.
There is also the impact on the the users and their families. If those canvassed did not feel strongly, why are they present at the protests? Why have they not already moved to the new, super-duper alternative options?
This is just a comprehensive stitch-up to sell off another publicly-owned asset at the expense of some of our most vulnerable residents, whilst dressing it up as earnest cost-cutting. I have no doubt the current administration will push it through as they will not scrutinise the report or consider it’s ramifications.
I’ve just received a four page full colour leaflet through the door on all the reasons I should vote Labour.
They could have spent this money on keeping Wellington House open, which I notice is not mentioned in the leaflet.
This publication is but a mix of fantasy and Emperor’s New Clothes announcements.. ‘Fill more Tory potholes’ is paricularly insane since the Tories haven’t run BHCC for 15 years.
The Labour rose motif now looks like it’s hiding a swastica.
With wicked decisions like closing Wellington House, maybe it is.
Ah, but the Tory government’s fifteen years of halving the national road maintenance budget is being seen now, because that’s how lag works, James.
That lag is often omitted to hide the fault of the Tories and instead used to blame Labour who are now having to pick up the pieces.
And as usual, let’s say it again, budget for the roads cannot be used for adult social care.
Just a quick question Benjamin, do you believe that this process is justified? It would appear that the decision to close was taken before any consultation, the alleged savings are not savings but shifting a greater burden to a different budget or onto charities. What do you think about the stripping of assets from public ownership?
Great question…on a purely financial tone – non-profit entities do have a diverse recourse to funding, multiple discounts and exemptions to typical expenses, and are not limited by council policy which can make it far more expensive for council to run a building.
The human element is perfectly valid too, and especially when routine is very important, the change can be very disruptive to clients.
I tend to take the pragmatic view, seeing that councils broadly are still struggling to provide services whilst having less income to do so; BHCC being one of the most service heavy councils regionally; and the ever-ballooning ASC bill as population becomes top-heavy…having all this in mind, a £340k saving now, plus future expenditure avoided, by providing an alternative provision, feels justified.
It’s difficult though, isn’t it?
Plenty of money for Bella & Co’s woke projects.
None for support of local vulnerable adults and their families/carers.
What does that say to you?
Says you don’t know much about ringfenced budgets.
Au contraire.
Good that you’re admitting that Bella has woke projects!
And that’s just a poor attempted deflection from you being called out about not knowing much about ringfenced budgets.
Time to get to the heart of the matter: the decision is not pragmatic,it is is policy.The evidence is in plain sight, anyone vaguely interested just needs to go back through the last fourteen years of BHCC cuts.The language is pretty much consistent,the decisions are always ‘ difficult ‘.The political party is irrelevant,as the results are the same .
This decision is particularly significant as the upper echelons are currently obsessed with ‘ intersectionality ‘,and while the lack of an intellectual challenge to this performative ideology,we see the absurdity of one key section of the community: the cognitively impaired,who rely on advocacy,being ‘outsourced’ to the independent sector.Informed individuals,know communication and relationship building are the key skills in social care.This decision takes neither into account, everything is justified and consultation is just adds to the performance.
There remains significant savings to be made,but these are bound up in the absurdity of the top heavy structure of the council.Check out how many managers and commissioners there are within the disability service.Skill lies in those individuals who deliver actual services,though the lateral management system that might accompany this,will not be arriving any time soon.
Local people require service delivery, outsourcing the last day centre illustrates the council just isn’t interested in the work.The norm now is more PAs aimlessly walking around town with their learning disabled charge,this is called ‘choice’ by a few .It is called the dismantling of an entire sector by others
Again, seperate budgets that wouldn’t affect each other, but the whataboutism argument doesn’t hold here either, since making savings to ASC and to the managerial structure aren’t mutually exclusive. I would agree both would benefit from streamlining.
This decision and the Red Route show how little Labour cares for the disabled. None of the reasons they give add up. I voted Labour last time, but if they close Wellington House, then no more.