Wanstead Youth Centre

Question 1: The Council is proposing to co-locate education, youth services and community hire space at Wanstead Youth Centre. How do you feel about this overall proposal?

76.8%-Strongly agree/agree.

17.8%- Strongly disagree/disagree.

5.4%-Neither agree nor disagree.

Question 2: The Council is proposing to deliver an Early Years Play and Development Centre (EYPaD) at Wanstead Youth Centre. EYPaD’s aim to offer children from birth to four years meaningful play experiences in exciting and safe environments supported by early years expertise. How do you feel about adding an EYPaD to the site?

94.6 %-Strongly agree/agree.

3.6%- Strongly disagree/disagree.

1.8%Neither agree nor disagree.

Question 3: The Council has to innovate to find ways to continue to fund services local people value. By bringing an education provision to Wanstead Youth Centre, we can access additional funding to keep the centre open. How do you feel about the Council providing additional education services at Wanstead Youth Centre?

82.5%-Strongly agree/agree.

8.7%- Strongly disagree/disagree.

8.8%Neither agree nor disagree.

Question 4: If the proposal to create a youth hub at the centre cannot be brought forward due to the condition of the building, which of the following options would you prefer the Council proceed with?

28.3%-Redevelop the site to provide private housing.

26.1%- Redevelop the site to provide social housing.

26.1%-Do nothing leave the site closed.

19.5%-Offer the site to the open market.

Question 5: Do you have any further comments?

Next Steps - Indicative Timelines

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.

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.

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.

The consultation will run from 12 January 2024 to 23 February 2024 and is comprised of three consultation evenings, held at the Wanstead Youth Centre site, as well as the opportunity to feedback online / via email. The feedback from this process to date is summarised below.

Consultation Evening – 23 January 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. In response to a piece of feedback received online, it was also clarified that there was no intention to locate a Pupil Referral Unit at the site. The proposal includes an alternative provision education setting, but it was intended that this should serve pupils who were struggling to access a mainstream education, for reasons other than being excluded (e.g. language barriers, social / medical barriers). This was followed by a question-and-answer session, the key elements of which are summarised below.

Q. One attendee queried whether the Council could request additional funding from central government to address the backlog maintenance issues at the Wanstead Youth Centre site and thereby retain in its current form.

A. It was confirmed that there were no available funding routes for this form of investment. The Council had tried to think creatively by leveraging existing education grant funding, so as to deliver against its statutory responsibilities, whilst underpinning the long-term sustainability of the Wanstead Youth Centre building. There is no dedicated grant funding specifically for youth centres, which necessitated such an approach.

Q. An attendee queried whether existing services would be relocated to the Wanstead Youth Centre, e.g. from the Loxford Youth Centre.

A. The Council confirmed that all of the services proposed as part of the education & Youth Hub represented new provision and, as such, it was not intended to relocate services from elsewhere in the Borough.

Q. A number of attendees queried whether the larger of the three existing sports halls could be retained as part of the proposed remodelling, rather than the middle “gymnasium”.

A. In response, the Council undertook to look into this possibility with the architect who had designed the original feasibility study. It was likely that such a proposal would cost more, so this would have to be tested and put to the Council leadership for consideration.

Q. A query was raised in relation to how the Wanstead Youth Centre had been allowed to run up a £2.4 million backlog maintenance issue, when the centre had been generating income.

A. The centre was running at a loss when open and had therefore not been generating sufficient income to fully cover the costs of maintaining the building. In its final financial year, it had made a loss of approximately £90,000, inclusive of maintenance of £5,000 per annum. To address the backlog maintenance issue was clearly not viable in these circumstances.

Q. A number of residents queried whether the community space within the remodelled building could be configured such as to provide dedicated access for the community.

A. Unfortunately, the hall that would be retained within the Education & Youth Hub model would need to be used by the onsite education provisions (and their pupils) during the day. As such, community use would need to be exclusively at evenings and weekends.

Q. An attendee queried which other sites within Redbridge have been considered for the location of the services included within the Education & Youth Hub model.

A. The Council confirmed that it had considered sites within central Ilford and Hainault for the location of different elements of this provision. Due to its size, the Wanstead site presented a unique opportunity to collocate all of these elements of provision on a single site, whilst underpinning the long-term sustainability of the building itself.

Q. An attendee queried whether these proposals had been shared with schools.

A. The Council confirmed that the consultation had been shared with all schools and feedback had been encouraged in this respect.

Q. A query was raised as to why there were two kitchens at opposite ends of the building and whether this could be rationalised.

A. The intended capacity of the building is such that the Council expects that this level of kitchen provision will be required, so as to serve the education provisions and public café distinctly. However, the Council will look again at this with the architect, to assess whether any rationalisation can be achieved.

Q. A local resident emphasised that they would like to ensure maximum availability for the community from 16:00-22:00 on weekdays and at weekends.

A. The Council confirmed that it fully intended to secure the maximum amount of community use at evenings and weekends.

Q. An attendee queried whether a café was required as part of the proposal.

A. The café is an integral element of the EYPaD Centre model. It works well at the existing provision next to Cranbrook Primary School and we believe it would be an asset as part of the Wanstead proposal, both for use by parents during the day and by the wider community at evenings and weekends (when it would compliment the wider leisure provision at the site).

Q. A number of attendees asked for the Council to ensure that they considered the needs of the older elements of the local community, as well as the younger.

A. The Council confirmed that it was committed to ensuring that all segments of the local community were well catered for, as part of this proposal, inclusive of the broader community use at evenings and weekends.

Q. A query was raised as to whether a rock climbing facility could be integrated within the proposals.

A. The Council undertook to look at this possibility with the architects.

Q. A number of residents asked whether the building could be reopened now for community use, whilst the future plans were decided.

A. To reopen the site would incur substantial maintenance and service fees, for which there is no longer the budget. Furthermore, the vast majority of historic users have now been relocated to other premises.

Q. A resident asked whether an assurance could be provided that the site wouldn’t be sold for housing.

A. The Council was not in a position to make this guarantee at present. Ultimately, it will depend on consultation feedback and whether the Education & Youth Hub proposal goes forward. If the Council were to proceed with this proposal, then the site would be safeguarded from housing development.

Q. A query was raised as to how residents who didn’t have internet access could feedback on the proposals.

A. The Council committed to placing copies of the consultation document in the local library and at local GP practices, together with an address that interested parties could write to, if required.

Q. It was queried whether, if the proposal were approved, the local community would be involved in the design development process.

A. The Council confirmed that it would seek to actively involve the local community in the design development process. It has been undertaking substantial stakeholder engagement on another of its education projects (Park School) and would look to take the learning from this, to underpin stakeholder engagement on this proposal.

Q. A number of attendees queried whether the music centre at the site would be retained under these proposals.

A. The Council confirmed that it was looking at the best way to integrate a music studio within the new designs. Whilst the provision may need to be relocated within the design, it was still regarded as an important element of the offer to the building users.