Consultation Evening – 8 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 now undertaken a design workshop with the architect, to look in detail at the additional options for the feasibility study. The aim was to have initial draft plans of these options available in time for the following (online) public engagement session, for open discussion with the community. This introduction was followed by a question-and-answer session, the key elements of which are summarised below.

Q. A question was raised in relation to how children would arrive at the Hub, given the challenges with public transport and reduction in bus services.

A. Responsibility for managing transport to education sites typically rests with parents, who will have to coordinate this. Inevitably, in practice, there will be a mix of private and public transport used. In line with a previous response, the Council is looking to commission a Traffic Impact Assessment to look at this matter in more detail.

Q. An attendee suggested that if community users are unable to access the site via public transport, it would not be financially viable as a community facility.

A. If the proposal to convert the space into an Education & Youth Hub were to proceed, the facility would no longer be financially reliant on the community usage. Rather, the centre’s financial viability would be fully underpinned by the daytime usage, thereby securing the community use in the long-term.

Q. An attendee queried whether the Council had undertaken a study on the financial operating costs during the time of Vision management of the facility. There was a suggestion that the facility had been in a state of managed decline for some time.

A. The Council’s Leisure Department has undertaken this financial modelling and, even assuming all of the available slots being used during Vision’s time, the Centre would not have been financially viable, especially in view of the £2.4 million backlog maintenance issue.

Q. An attendee suggested that there was a disconnect regarding public use of the EYPaD during the day, whilst the wider education facility does not allow for community use of the remainder of the building during this time.

A. Ultimately, the EYPaD can be thought of as a distinct facility from the three other more specialist education uses. In the EYPaD, children are accompanied by parents, whereas the other facilities operate as more traditional education settings. As such, there will be a secure line between the EYPaD (to which the public will have access during the day) and the remainder of the building, within which daytime usage will have to be strictly safeguarded.

Q. a question was raised in relation to where the children using the Medical & Inclusion service are currently being educated.

A. These pupils are currently taught at home, or else meet a tutor in a setting such as a library.

Q. A question was raised in relation to whether education budget cuts would have an impact on the delivery of the services within the proposed Education & Youth Hub.

A. Ultimately, it is not anticipated that the facility would be reliant on the education budget in the same manner as other services. Ultimately, the proposal involves a more efficient means of service delivery, with invest-to-save and revenue generation components, modelling of which demonstrates that the facility should not incur a net loss.

Q. A number of attendees queried whether the children at the Hub would have access to green spaces.

A. The Council committed to looking at this possibility with the architect, as part of the development of the new options and consideration of the wider site plan.

Q. A query was raised as to whether the neighbouring tennis courts could be utilised as part of the wider redevelopment of the site.

A. The Education representatives at the meeting were unclear as to the ownership of this piece of land but undertook to explore the matter further. To that end they can now confirm these are Council owned and leased to Vision RCL with the former youth centre and it appears to just be used informally Vision is the Council’s leisure operator.

Q. A number of attendees highlighted the fact that, when the site was operated as a youth centre previously, lots of young people congregated just outside the site and the surrounding streets. Fundamentally, egress from the site wasn’t managed and wasn’t perceived to be the responsibility of the Council.

A. The Council confirmed that a similar scenario wouldn’t be allowed to happen in future. At al youth provision now, the Council akes responsibility for the behaviour of young people in the area surrounding the site, as well as the site itself. In addition, youth work has fundamentally changed since Wanstead was last used for such provision, in as much as children are less concentrated in youth provision and have other activities to occupy them outside of this.

Q. A query was raised as to how secure the future of the site was, given that a future Cabinet decision was required in this respect.

A. Whilst no guarantees can be provided outside of the formal democratic decision-making process, the Council has committed to undertaking public consultation and expenditure on two separate feasibility studies and, as such, it should be seen to be a proposal that the Council is serious about exploring.

Q. One attendee queried whether bookings for the evening and weekend community use would be handed to Vision again.

A. It was confirmed that the Education Department intended to manage community bookings itself, without input from Vision.

Q. A query was raised as to whether the Council would lose the capital funding intended for the scheme if a decision was not made by April.

A. The Council confirmed that the Education capital funding in question was not subject to clawback by the DfE and was therefore the decision was not time-sensitive in this respect.

Q. One attendee commented that it was not a good idea to sell valuable public assets to developers. The proposal to serve children is a good idea.

A. The attendees from the Council’s Education Department confirmed that it was their ambition that this site should be safeguarded for ongoing public use, if the Education & Youth Hub proposal was approved by Cabinet.

Q. One attendee observed that studies show young people learn better later in the day and that rescheduling the school day in this respect may enable community use earlier in the morning.

A. It would be difficult to justify a fundamental restructuring of the school day for this provision relative to other provision locally and nationally. However, later in process, we will consider if community usage prior to the start of the school day could be a viable option.

Q. A question was raised as to the age range of the young people using the Centre under the proposals.

A. The Council confirmed that the different provisions spanned the full age range from 0 to 16 years.