Online Teams Consultation Evening – 15 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 draft plans of these options were discussed in detail 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 as to whether there would be a separate entrance to address safeguarding issues.

A. This would be looked into taking into account safeguarding issues in terms of the resident’s access to the site during the school day and secondly to think about the fact that the sports provision will be needed by students on site during the day.

Q. They also raised whether the Quality Impact Assessments took into account the needs of seniors and marginalised groups.

A. This would have been done when the proposals were made to close the centre. Our EQIA focus is on the education provision for young people rather than the seniors, but we will consider how to reflect in the EQIA.

Q. One attendee asked if the centre could be open/used now to generate income and also asked if they could see monthly expenditure since the closure on the 15^{th of} October.

A. This has already been fed back to the politicians previously and the answer was no but would feedback the freedom of information request regarding the running costs etc per month.

Q. The next attendee questioned the cost and quality of the build.

A. It was stated that we had provisional costs back of around 5.2 million but that we were waiting for further information to come back as to the 3 new options. In regard to the quality, the building at present was not in a good condition therefore the education investment will effectively improve the quality of the provision and therefore future proof.

Q. The question was raised yet again about whether the centre would be opened in the interim.

A. It was not our decision as officials, but the information was that it would not be reopened and that from an education point of view there would be a lot of work to do on site before the actual timeline of the physical build.

Q. The attendee also asked how the maintenance back log had occurred.

A. The officials stated that as they didn’t run the centre, they couldn’t comment on how it had occurred.

Q. It was then raised as to what kind of numbers of children would we be serving in the potential provision.

A. The numbers for the iPad centre will vary as it is for young children and their families to come to the activity. This ay vary from day to day but also within an actual day. For the small young children’s provision, we think between 10-15 students and around 70 students for the medical tuition provision.

Q. What model was used to base this on.

A. The model is based on a current provision called ‘’Grow’’ which is a therapeutic intervention for 5–7-year-olds. For Alternative provision we are currently looking at different options to enhance what we already provide in schools. The medical tuition provision will be like a hospital for outpatients only.

Q. The attendee also asked which budget this was coming out of.

A. The costs come from the education capital spend as a combination of mainstream education capital and SEN education capital.

Q. A question was raised as to how people were invited to take part in the consultation process as they hadn’t received the standard council email.

A. The response was that letters were sent to every house within a certain radius of the centre, notifications to schools to share with families through their normal communication channels. It was advertised in the local press, council social media and other public places such as libraries however they would look into this.

Q. A handout from the last meeting stated that research would be undertaken to decide if the centre could open while future plans were decided and how the maintenance back log had occurred. Therefore, could we see this research.

A. The word research used in the Q&A was possibly misleading in what was actually involved in this and the feedback we got was that the centre would not reopen and that it doesn’t relate directly to the education consultation because what we are focused on is what the future use of it will be rather than the current. Regarding the maintenance back log as questions had been asked previously by the community, we had agreed to feed that back to the relevant parts of the council for them to respond to it.

Q. A question was raised as to who decides on the 3 options and what assurances can be given that the council will not change its mind and the long-term sustainability.

A. The decision ultimately lies with the cabinet members as to which option we progress with. A large part of their decision will be based on the report that we write to them in April and our recommendations. If education goes in this will sustain it for the future.

Q. One attendee asked what time the community will be able to use the centre to at night.

A. The normal time in education would be until 10/10:30 pm and probably weekends 9 till 9/10 pm.

Q. A question was raised as to what youth services would be provided outside of school hours by the council and other providers.

A. Once the building is done, we will be looking to put some free at point of access youth provision in there, some delivered by the council and the rest by other providers such as youth groups, voluntary group etc.

Q. A question was raised if we could speak at the community forum.

A. It was stated that this probably would be highly unlikely an option as the drafting of the report could not be influenced. However, we would be happy to come to a community meeting to talk about what was going to be in the draft report.

Q. One attendee asked if a sports facility could be built on the tarmac area which was the old tennis courts.

A. This would ultimately be a decision by the members, but we would look at the land to see what we could do with it from an education point of view.

Q. A further question was raised as to how safeguarding would work with Ipad and the community café.

A. Most of the children would be of the age 0-3 years old so therefore would be accompanied by their parents. They will wait in the community café until they then go to their activities in other rooms/pods. The café is not for the locals to just come in and use.

Q. Finally it was asked if a closer bus stop could be asked for under the banner of it being under the education provision.

A. If the proposal is agreed we will need to produce a transport plan which will include what we might need from a public transport perspective so can be fed back at this point.