Content

Cabinet:

(1)         
considered the responses to the public
consultation as set out in Appendix A and Section 6 of the
report;

(2)         
considered the alternative proposals put
forward by residents as set out in Appendix B and Section 4 of the
report;

(3)         
considered the alternative proposals put
forward by staff as set out in Appendix C and Section 4 of the
report;

(4)         
considered the feedback and requests from
the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee as set out in
Appendix I of the report;

(5)         
noted and took into account the updated
building condition surveys, attached as Appendix M and N of the
report;

(6)         
agreed to proceed with the proposed
closure of the Markhouse Centre in
its’ current form;

(7)         
noted the arrangements to implement
person-centred transitional arrangements for all people currently
accessing the Markhouse Centre as set
out in paragraph 3.19 of the report; and

(8)         
noted that if a decision is made to close
the Centre, the future of the site and building will be considered
in the context of the Strategic Asset Management Plan process, and
then any proposal for future use would go through the
Council’s normal governance processes, with a final decision
made by Cabinet.
 
Options and
Alternatives considered
 
During the public and staff consultation a
number of respondents proposed alternative options for the Council
to consider, which some considered that the Council had not
previously sufficiently considered when it took the decision to
consult. Appendix B sets out the alternative options that were
proposed through public consultation and an analysis of these
against the rationale for the proposal to close the Centre and the
extent to which these would deliver on those objectives. Appendix C
sets out the alternative options proposed by staff. Options
available to Cabinet which have been considered include the
following.
 
Relocating the service to an
alternative building.This option was proposed by residents and
staff, with staff proposing a number of alternative buildings which
might host the service. All of the alternative buildings suggested
would require substantial capital investment to bring those
buildings up to standard where they could host a service such as
the Markhouse Centre. A number of the
buildings proposed are not considered to be appropriate to run the
service due to their size and condition. This option would also
incur continued running costs to fund the service. This option is
not recommended as it does not support the Council’s wider
focus on ensuring a firm financial footing and would not deliver on
the Council’s wider day opportunities vision for
person-centred provision. The majority of alternative options
submitted in relation to relocating the service to an alternative
building were about relocating to the Ferguson Centre. This option
is not viable as the building would require substantial capital
investment to bring it up to standard. The level of refurbishment
would need to be determined however, the building as currently
presented does not have suitable insulation and needs works
undertaken to the roof and windows as well as the internal changes
required to make the space suitable for use by staff and service
users. It does not represent value for money for the Council to
undertake minor ad hoc repairs and not do other works required to
bring an old building up to modern standards, making it fit for
public use.
 
The Council invests in the
building to modernise the service so it can continue to be
delivered from the Markhouse
Centre. This option was proposed by residents and staff. To
bring the Centre up to the standard of a modern-day service, this
option would require significant capital investment over and above
the £1.2m identified in the Norse Evolve condition survey.
This would include bringing the first floor back into operation,
replacing the lift and undertaking further repairs which are
excluded from the condition survey.  Due
to the condition of the building, and the fact that more generally
it is not fit for purpose as a modern-day centre, this option is
not recommended.
 
Leasing space in the building
(such as the first floor) to another organisation to generate
income. This option was proposed by residents and staff. This
option would require significant upfront capital investment,
separate to the £1.2m, to bring the building up to the
necessary standard for the service to continue to operate from
there, and to make changes to the building to ensure a feasible and
safe  access point to the first floor
for a tenant (separate access, new lift etc.); to ensure the
building was fit for purpose for a tenant ; and to ensure any
necessary safeguarding adaptations to the building were put in
place. This option would be dependent on the Council’s
ability to secure a tenant. The advice of the Property service is
that this option is not feasible. It is unlikely that a tenant
would be found for the building. If a tenant could be secured, the
rental income generated is highly unlikely to be sufficient to
financially sustain the service.
 
Sourcing external investment or
fundraising. Residents raised the option of identifying
external funding to improve the building, including crowdfunding.
This option is dependent on community donations or other external
investment which has not materialised into any specific proposal.
The timescale for such a proposal cannot be quantified and the
option of Cabinet delaying a decision to explore this is not
recommended as it is unlikely that this could progress into a
viable option that would cover required capital and revenue
costs.
 
Parents/carers creating a
consortium to run the building. As in point 4.5 no viable
proposal has been put forward in relation to this option that could
be evaluated, and it is not recommended for the reasons set
out.
 
Alternative day opportunities
provider to take over the building and service. Following the
decision by Cabinet in June there were three day-opportunities
providers who approached the Council and expressed an interest in
taking over the building and service. Upon receipt of information
about the building and the service, two providers indicated that
they were no longer interested in pursuing the opportunity. A third
provider sought, and was provided with, more detailed financial
information to enable them to consider whether they wished to put
forward a proposal for a potential takeover of the Markhouse Centre building and service. After being
provided with financial information regarding staffing costs,
outgoings and revenue information, this provider also confirmed
that they were unable to proceed with any such proposal.
 
Merging the Markhouse centre with other services such as day or
respite services through sharing the building; utilising the
building at weekends and/or in ways that would generate income.
Various detailed suggestions were made as set out in Appendix C
through the staff consultation as to how the Council could utilise
the building in a different way which could avoid closure. The
detailed responses as to why those proposals are not considered
viable are set out in Appendix C.
 
The recommended option is to proceed with the
closure of the Centre and support families to access alternative
provision. The original rationale for the proposal remains relevant
and there have been no feasible alternative proposals that enable
the Council to deliver on the three key reasons for the proposed
closure of the Centre.