Clash over respite care services in Sunderland

Leading councillors stressed actions have been taken to help boost future provision and “prevent the chances” of issues arising again following concerns around the transition of respite care services in the city.

It came following a motion from Conservative councillors on the lack of “overnight support” for parents of disabled and vulnerable children during the period between Grace House closing and a new respite care site opening.

Such services in Sunderland were previously provided at Grace House before controversially ending in November 2023 against a backdrop of campaigning by families affected.

Plans were subsequently submitted by Together for Children, which delivers children’s services on behalf of Sunderland City Council, for a new care centre at Red Gables, a five-bedroom detached property in East Rainton.

This was unanimously approved by the local authority’s planning committee last month.

Project bosses previously hoped the care centre at Red Gables would open in autumn 2024, however a presentation to councillors in September noted the process could still take “up to 18 months for the home to open”.

Children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and their families are expected to benefit from the facility, with the total cost of purchase and conversion estimated at £1.7 million.

Those proposals were first lodged in December 2023 before having to be withdrawn due to a “legal technicality” and then resubmitted in August 2024.

At the latest Sunderland City Council meeting, Councillor Antony Mullen, leader of the authority’s Conservative group, proposed a motion for the council to “better prepare for its provision of short-term respite care” in future and agree “a package of measures” designed to improve support to disabled young people.

This included ensuring future decisions regarding short-break respite care arrangements are discussed with councillors, service users and as part of the scrutiny process.

It also called for a wider review of respite care to ensure a range of support is available for different types of needs, and for a report on this to go before councillors.

Cllr Mullen, speaking at the meeting, said: “The original timeline suggested that the council would have secured an alternative to Grace House a year ago this month, but in reality the families have had to make do with poorer alternatives.

“The council has to accept responsibility for this and endure the shame that comes with it, but the purpose of this motion is to ensure that families in this situation never have to face this circumstance again.

“Through better scrutiny, better user engagement, and a wider review of respite care services offered within Sunderland, our hope is to address the injustice that occurred to these families.”

The motion also called for families and children displaced from Grace House to be made priority for placements at Red Gables and that these should be offered on a “like for like basis”.

Finally it requested a report go before a council scrutiny committee on how staffing, recruitment and retention needs for the new Red Gables facility will be met in advance of it opening.

Conservative Councillor Lyall Reed, seconding the motion, noted some families “will have had four respite care provision locations within eight years” and he has heard “harrowing tales” of experiences some have faced since the Grace House provision ended.

He added: “It’s still going on, it hasn’t ended, when will this situation end?”

However Labour’s councillor Michael Butler, cabinet member for children’s services, child poverty and skills, noted all impacted families have been offered alternative respite provision, although he admitted some of those “were not identical to what they received at Grace House”.

He added he has taken a number of steps since taking over the cabinet member position in recent months to “ensure something like this doesn’t happen again, or certainly prevent the chances of that”.

This has included requesting the council scope out other areas to provide more respite provision so that succession planning can take place and such services can be offered to “more families”.

Speaking at the meeting (on Wednesday, November 13), Cllr Butler said: “This is about some of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens of this city and we need to target our resources at these people.

“What I can guarantee to the residents of this city and families of this city with children with such complex disabilities is I will wholeheartedly stand behind them and fight for what they need and what they deserve as taxpayers of this country, and we’ll give them whatever we can.”

He added Labour councillors were not supporting the motion as it claimed some families were left without respite care for months, however the council “offered respite to every family”.

Cllr Mullen disputed this, noting “not all families” received the overnight respite care provision which would allow the parents to leave their child with a qualified individual.

Cllr Butler responded by stating all families “were given individual assessments for their needs at that point and whatever came out of that assessment they were offered”.

He added: “Sometimes it’s not what the family truly wanted, but we’ve got to provide what the experts and what the evidence says for that child and family.”

Labour’s Councillor Iain Scott, Hetton ward representative, said he was looking forward to the new Red Gables facility “being right at the centre” of his ward.

He added: “I’m delighted that there is now a significant light at the end of the tunnel for the families affected by the closure of Grace House.

“These children require our absolute care and deserve that from our city, and I’m very glad that we will go ahead and provide this going forward.”

Councillors from both parties also expressed their frustration around delays in the planning process which prevented the proposals for the new Red Gables site coming forward sooner.

The Conservative motion was defeated with 17 votes in favour, one abstention and 44 against.

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr Mullen described the outcome as ‘hugely disappointing’ and accused Labour of ‘letting vulnerable families down’.