The council wants to sell the building that houses a day centre for some of the most vulnerable adults in Brighton and Hove.
The plan to sell Wellington House, in Brighton, is explained in a report which also said that the closure would save less than £340,000 rather than the £400,000 forecast in the budget.
But campaigners fear that the loss of the day centre, which provides valuable respite for families, could mean that some struggle to continue caring for their loved ones.
Even if the council had to fund full-time care for just two of the more vulnerable adults who use the day centre, it would wipe out any savings, potentially for many years.
A consultation found that people were against the proposed closure, with more than 3,000 people signing a petition to save the day centre.
Among the reasons are that the proposed closure would break up a community whose learning difficulties mean that they are more socially isolated than most people.
Some campaigners said that the council justified the closure of another day centre, in Portslade, by pledging to provide care at Wellington House instead.
But the council believes that it has to break this promise because the old building that houses the day centre is expensive to run and in need of costly work.
The report said that the running costs were higher than those of other providers although the council also added in various extra costs and, a union said, had turned away families wanting to use the service, artificially the “unit costs”.
The report said: “Local authority costs are higher as they include central support services such as HR, finance, IT, legal and governance requirements. Also, higher pension contribution and staff policy benefits.
“External providers typically operate with leaner management structures, lower employment costs … with more flexible operating models.”
A 12-week consultation was carried out by Brighton and Hove City Council, with the findings included in a newly published report.
It said: “The feedback shows that Wellington House is highly valued as a familiar, specialist and trusted service for those that attend and the parents and carers that benefit from the service.
“Common themes included the importance of skilled and consistent staff, predictable routines, meaningful activities, concerns about the impact of change on service users, including increased anxiety and disruption to routines, concerns about whether alternative providers can meet individual needs.
“The importance of friendships, peer relationships and social connection, the need for reassurance for families and unpaid carers, as the service provides essential respite for them, was also a key concern.
“Respondents also raised significant concerns about uncertainty about the suitability of alternative provision, provider capacity, quality and staff skills, potential impact on families, unpaid carers and wider circles of support, transport arrangements and the need for careful transition planning and post-transition monitoring.”
The report said that the council believed that there was suitable alternative provision and that dozens of staff based in the building could be based elsewhere instead.
It added: “The decision to move people would only happen when the council is satisfied that every one of the 21 people who currently attend Wellington House can have their day opportunity needs met locally with at least the same quality of care.”
And it said that alternative providers would be required to demonstrate their ability to support and meet
- learning disability support needs
- autism-related support needs
- communication and interaction needs
- sensory support needs
- positive behavioural support needs
- physical disability, mobility, access, and personal care needs
- mental health and emotional wellbeing needs
- epilepsy, medication management, and other health-related support needs
- age-related, deteriorating, or changing support needs
The union that represents staff at Wellington House, Unison, warned of the financial risks, saying that if any relationships or future provision broke down, the council would be saddled with the cost of full-time care rather than just day care.
All 21 of the adults who currently use Wellington House are cared for at home by their families rather than the council – and the council had “allowed” Wellington House to decline.
Unison said: “(The costs of fulfilling) its statutory duty to provide residential care are considerable. Just one premature breakdown in home care would wipe out this saving in one year.”
The union also said: “There is considerable evidence that the potential of Wellington House has not been explored and that there has been neglect and decline in the management and support of the service.”
The union’s feedback reflected the repeated criticisms made by leading Labour councillors and the new Prime Minister Andy Burnham of vital services being provided by the private sector.
It warned the Labour-run council of “reputational damage at a time where insourcing and excellent provision of community owned services and provision is seen so favourably by the public.
“This is one of the most vulnerable and potentially isolated groups in society and the council has already experienced reputational damage around this suggested closure.
“We would ask that the council remember that once a building is sold it cannot be sold again. This would be a one-off saving and a short-term answer to a medium / long-term issue.
“There would also be the problem and cost of relocating staff when the few remaining main council buildings are already at or over capacity.
“Hove Town Hall is bursting at the seams and our members there continue to relay concerns around privacy, heat, overcrowding, accessibility and safety.”
The council’s integrity in approaching the closure of Wellington House was also called into question, with potential users turned away, artificially inflating the running costs per person.
The union said: “There is also evidence that parents who have expressed a desire for their children to attend the centre have had their requests not actioned raising serious questions around transparency and intent.
“While the workforce has become demoralised over time, their commitment and passion for the work they do has not dimmed and, if given the opportunity, they would be skilled and active participants in developing and growing the service and improving its efficiency.”
The proposal to close Wellington House is due to be discussed at a special People Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting at Hove Town Hall at 2pm on Friday (4 September).
The council said that no decisions would be made on Friday but “the committee may make recommendations” to the council’s cabinet about the proposals.
The cabinet is due to decide whether to close the day centre at a meeting on Thursday 17 September.
The Council should be looking at how much money they will LOSE by closing Wellington House. Increased health and hospital admission/stay costs, increased social care costs, increased health costs for stressed family members who have lost their daily respite time to re-charge their batteries who start losing their own health and needing more services as a result. These will all amount to far more council money spent than any short-term savings the short-sighted closure of Wellington House will achieve. The only way to save money is to keep residents as independent and socially interactive as possible for as long as possible, and give as many respite and day centre facilities as possible to facilitate good health for users and their carers. Free carers are a massive resource who are abused by this council at its peril when they are given devastating closures which in some cases, could be the straw which broke the camel’s back. We know we have a current administration virtually devoid of human empathy, but even if they stick to the cold hard line of how much cash they will be saving by closing Wellington House, it will be vastly outweighed by all the increased costs which will result in other areas.
Reading the article, the estimated savings have been cited to be £340,000, reduced from £400,000 initially.
Even more scandalous to close it in that case.
Just pragmatic.