Wanstead Youth Centre

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.