Purpose

Cabinet recommended to
reconsider the decision on the future of Markhouse Road and take into account the
independent review of the building condition survey.
 
 

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 to the
report;

(5)         
agreed to proceed with the proposed closure of the Markhouse Centre in its’ current form;

(6)         
noted the arrangements to implement person-centred transitional
arrangements for all for people currently accessing the
Markhouse Centre as set out in
paragraph 3.16 of the report; and

(7)         
noted that if a decision is made to close the Centre, the future of
the site and building will be considered as part of the Strategic
Asset Management Plan.

 
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 to the report 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 to the report 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, which is one of the key
reasons for the proposal to close the service. 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. This
option would require significant capital investment, likely higher
than £1.2m, to bring the centre up to the standard of a
modern-day service and would also incur ongoing running costs. 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, as it is not considered to be an economical use of
Council funding.

 
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 capital investment, likely
higher than £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 viable and
safe  access point to the first floor
for a tenant; 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 view 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 to the report 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 to the report.
 
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.