Oak Hill is closing because it is no longer financially or operationally sustainable. Despite extensive efforts over a number of years, the charity cannot continue to meet its obligations safely, responsibly, and within the resources available to it.

A significant amount. The decision followed a prolonged period of review, discussion, and attempts to secure a viable long-term future for the service. Trustees carefully considered the impact on children, families, and staff, alongside their legal duty to act in the best interests of the charity and to prevent risk to children, staff, and the organisation.

No. The closure is not the result of any single person, family, or recent event. It reflects structural challenges facing the organisation over time.

Oak Hill operated as a charity in order to subsidise care. The true cost of safely running the service is significantly higher than the fees families paid. Charging the full cost would place the service far beyond what most families could reasonably afford.

At present, Oak Hill does not have the required trustees, funding, or infrastructure in place to support a transition. Establishing and running a registered childcare charity carries significant legal, financial, and safeguarding responsibilities.

Oak Hill will be closing as an organisation. Any future provision would need to be set up as a completely new service, with new governance, registration, staffing, funding, and regulatory approval.

Oak Hill is an independent charity. Local authorities have their own responsibilities and decision‑making processes for commissioning services. Families are encouraged to contact their local authority to discuss alternative support.

Some families previously used Direct Payments or schemes such as Extra Hands to access Oak Hill. Direct Payments arrangements were between families and their local authority. Families should now contact their local authority or children’s disability team to explore how support can be used elsewhere.

No. While the trustees recognise the impact on families, the charity cannot continue operating once it is no longer viable or safe to do so.

The service will close on the date communicated directly to families. This date has been set to allow for appropriate notice and orderly closure.

Families are advised to contact:

• Their local authority children’s disability team

• Their social worker (if applicable)

• Their child’s school

• The local authority Direct Payments team

Oak Hill is not able to broker or arrange alternative provision.

No. Oak Hill does not have the capacity or authority to identify or recommend alternative services.

Yes. Oak Hill will be closing as a charity and childcare provider.

Staff are being supported through a formal and lawful closure process.

Assets will be responsibly transferred or disposed of in line with charity law.

No. Trustees will not be engaging in individual discussions about the decision.

Oak Hill will respond only where clarification of published information is required. Ongoing correspondence or debate about the decision itself will not be entered into.

No. Oak Hill has been run by trustees acting appropriately, lawfully, and in good faith at all times. The primary issue leading to closure is financial sustainability in an increasingly difficult funding environment, not mismanagement.

The trustees are volunteers, many of whom work full-time and have significant caring responsibilities of their own. Over a number of years, they reviewed sustainability regularly, sought professional advice where appropriate, and made repeated efforts to secure funding and recruit additional trustees with relevant skills. Trustees have also, at times, had to step down due to personal circumstances, which is a normal and lawful part of voluntary governance.

Yes. The trustees were aware of the growing financial risk and responded by submitting a high number of grant applications, reviewing costs, and exploring options to extend the service safely. Despite these efforts, funding opportunities became fewer, more competitive, and insufficient to cover the true cost of provision.

Oak Hill did receive funding over the years, but the cost of operating the service was high. When the club was running, weekly costs were significant – around £10,000 per week – due to staffing ratios, specialist training, insurance, equipment, materials, and venue hire. Some costs continued year-round even when the club was not operating, including management, compliance, and safeguarding requirements. Venue costs increased substantially, with summer hire alone costing thousands of pounds. At the same time, cost-of-living pressures, national insurance increases, and a sharp reduction in available grants made the model unsustainable.

Trustees have made personal donations over the years, but the cost of running the service far exceeds what any individual trustee could afford. Trustees already contribute significant unpaid time to ensure the charity operates safely, responsibly, and in compliance with its legal duties. It would not be reasonable or lawful to expect trustees to personally subsidise an ongoing operational deficit.

Fees were set at a level comparable to mainstream childcare, even though Oak Hill’s costs were much higher due to 1:1 staffing and specialist support for children with complex needs. Fees were charged to ensure commitment from families and enable safe staffing, but they covered only a portion of the true cost. Many core costs – including management and compliance – existed year-round, regardless of whether the club was open.

Funding such as Extra Hands ended when the relevant local authority contract was not renewed. More recent schemes provided limited support but only covered a proportion of costs while the club was operating and were never sufficient to fund all children attending. These schemes could not address the underlying structural gap between funding and actual costs.

The trustees recognise that this news is distressing and disruptive. Oak Hill has been an important part of many families’ lives. Acknowledging this impact does not change the reality that the service cannot continue safely or sustainably.

The trustees understand why this may feel personal. The decision reflects organisational limits, not a lack of care or concern for families.

The decision has been driven by capacity and sustainability, not by changes in families’ needs. Continuing beyond this point would create unacceptable risk.

Statutory responsibility for support and respite sits with local authorities. Families should engage with their local authority to discuss next steps.

The decision to close has been taken and will not be reversed.