Wellington house consultation – Peer Advocates Survey findings

Overview

The surveys were gathered during drop-in visits between the 18^th of May and the 6^th of June 2026. Participants were given a presentation on the council’s proposal and an information pack. You can find both the information pack and the surveys attached. Those who were aware of the proposal were very vocal in their discontent, some filled out surveys, and some did not. In total, we took 7 completed surveys. I have compiled the responses into graphs below.

Why do you feel this way?

Respondent 1 (disagrees with the proposal)	It makes me feel like people with learning disabilities wont have a community and that the support for people who need it the most should have the support they need
Respondent 2 (disagrees with the proposal)	Because it should stay us to help people with disabilities access this service as part of the day
Respondent 3 (is not sure about the proposal)	Not sure as I haven’t been there. I think it is sad because it will be hard for people to find somewhere else to go. There might not be as much choice
Respondent 4 (strongly disagrees with the proposal)	I think it’s stupid because people may live far away from the day centres where they’ve sent, and that’s not fair. They may not be able to see their friends anymore. It’s not fair on people because they’ve been going there for years and they might be upset that it's closing. They’re going to miss their activities that they do there/ They’ll get fed up, depending on how independent they are. They might not know the other day centres or how to get there
Respondent 5 (strongly disagrees with the proposal)	It is unfair to take away community spaces 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.
Respondent 6 (strongly disagrees with the proposal)	If you close it there are lots of services that have helped me a lot that will change. How can you guarantee the same standard of service with another provider and what happens if that new provider can’t cope with the extra work and has to close also? It will be a shame because more people with learning disabilities won’t have a voice and will get left behind. It will be lots of stress and pressure on parents and carers. We can’t keep shifting services around to be someone else’s problem.

Conclusions

The issue that arose most frequently was the concern for the loss of Wellington House for the service users. There are themes of unfairness and the community being left behind. 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.  Only one respondent was unsure about the proposal; their concern was that it would ‘will be hard’ to find another place to go. No respondents reacted positively to the proposal.

It should be noted that members who did not feel strongly about the proposal were unlikely to fill out a survey. The response I have had when discussing the potential closure has either been one of profound concern or relative indifference due to not understanding the issue. Those who do not know what Wellington house is, or even the few who were unaware of what a day service is, required significant support to understand the decision. I found that when I had the time to invest in supporting an individual like this, the same themes of precarity and marginalisation emerged.