Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 3, 2024

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.