Consultation Evening – 1 February 2024

The meeting opened with a presentation from the local authority, providing an overview of the proposal and its rationale, as well as the structure of the consultation and decision-making process. The Council also updated on key elements of the previous Q&A session, including the fact that it had commissioned the architect to develop the additional options for the feasibility study that the community had asked for. The This was followed by a question-and-answer session, the key elements of which are summarised below.

Q. A number of attendees queried whether the Council could schedule the consultation events during weekends and at different times of the day. It was stated that some people were unable to attend in person meetings at 18:00, due to childcare commitments etc.

A. The Council has taken on board these concerns and has scheduled an online meeting for those who may not be able to attend the meeting in person, due to alternative commitments. Unfortunately, the Council is unable to schedule meetings at weekends, as it would not have staff available to coordinate such events.

Q. One attendee queried whether it was possible to build an extension on top of the existing building.

A. The Council has already considered the creation of a mezzanine floor within the hall spaces. It is possible that this could be augmented by removing the top of one of the halls and “building up”. Naturally, there would be cost implications associated with this. This will be tested as part of the expansion of the feasibility study with the architects referenced above, with a view to establishing whether such a solution would be more or less cost effective than expanding the building horizontally.

Q. An attendee queried whether the Council had the full amount of capital indicated within the feasibility study (£5,7 million) available within its reserves.

A. The local authority confirmed that it does have this amount within its education capital reserves, although it may ultimately decide to fund the scheme through a mix of different sources, including borrowing against future allocations.

Q. A follow-up question asked whether the potential to utilise borrowing as part of the funding mix could jeopardise the project.

A. The Council confirmed that the ultimate funding mix selected did not have any bearing on the project’s viability.

Q. One attendee asked a question regarding which specific types of therapies would be available in the Medical & Inclusion service component of the Education & Youth Hub.

A. Therapy provision will be aligned with the particular needs of the pupil cohort who ultimately end up utilising the centre.

Q. One attendee queried whether an Equality Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of this proposal.

A. The Council undertook an Equality Impact Assessment as part of both the initial proposal to close the building and also in respect of the proposal to open an Education & Youth Hub at the site. The latter of these documents has been published on the Wanstead Youth Centre consultation website.

Q. An attendee queried whether funding from Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy contributions would contribute to the funding mix for the Education & Youth Hub.

A. The Council confirmed that it was not currently considering these funding components as part of the funding mix for this scheme.

Q. An attendee queried when the updated feasibility with the additional options would be produced and shared with the public.

A. The Council envisaged having a draft version of the additional options ready to discuss in time for the fourth public engagement meeting on 15 February (online).

Q. One attendee suggested that the EYPAD model was not suitable for children with additional needs.

A. The EYPAD model caters for all children, irrespective of their need profile. The Council is not aware of any issues with the current provision at Cranbrook, although it would be willing to discuss any service user feedback outside of this consultation.

Q. An attendee queried how many pupils were currently using the Medical & Inclusion Service in Redbridge.

A. The Council confirmed that the number was approximately 70 at the time of the consultation.

Q. One attendee suggested that youth centres were being diminished within the Borough.

A. The Council confirmed that alternative models of service delivery needed to be considered in a context in which its youth centres were losing money. In response to this, the Council has sought to secure its youth centres at Loxford (and now at Wanstead) through ensuring that youth centre buildings have a core daytime usage, to underpin their financial viability.

Q. An attendee queried why pupils in receipt of the Medical & Inclusion Service couldn’t be educated within a mainstream school setting.

A. Whilst it is our ambition to make mainstream education settings as inclusive as possible, there are times when young people will present with specific needs that cannot be met within a mainstream setting. In such instances, the Medical & Inclusion Service provides an important resource to ensure that pupils’ leaning is not disrupted and, ultimately, to provide a bridge back to mainstream education, when appropriate.

Q. One attendee queried whether the feasibility study could be extended to include the external areas of the site.

A. The Council confirmed that it would look to produce a whole site plan, as part of the updated feasibility study.

Q. An attendee asked whether the Council would look to produce a Traffic Impact Assessment, to inform the decision-making process.

A. The Council confirmed that it would look to commission a traffic Impact Assessment and share this publicly, as part of the next Cabinet decision on this proposal.

Q. It was queried whether any PFI funding was intended to form part of the funding mix for the Education & Youth Hub.

A. The Council confirmed that PFI funding was not being considered for this scheme.

Q. One attendee queried whether there was a commitment to provide youth workers from the site, as part of the education & Youth Hub mode.

A. The Council confirmed that it was looking to provide youth services, with dedicated youth workers from the site, as part of the proposal.

Q. One attendee queried what would happen to the site during school holidays.

A. The Council confirmed that the site would continue to operate and be available for community use during the school holidays.

Q. An attendee queried whether the Council could develop an option that preserved two sports halls as part of the proposals.

A. The Council committed to considering this as part of the options developed within the updated feasibility study. However, it was also stressed that this would undoubtedly incur substantial additional capital expenditure, which may ultimately prove prohibitive. The remodelling of the design within the updated feasibility could neither be such that it compromised the proposed four education functions (which would undermine the long-term financial viability of the building), nor such that the capital expenditure was substantially in excess of what had already been proposed (which would make it effectively unaffordable). The aim of the Education Department was to maximise education usage during the day and maximise community usage at evenings and weekends.