A council-run nursery threatened with closure is based in a building that needs repairs costing more than £500,000, according to a new report.
The report was ordered after councillors received a petition signed by almost 1,500 people and a deputation of parents at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting before Christmas.
The parents and petitioners asked the council to reconsider closing the Bright Start Nursery as a cost-saving measure in the 2023-24 budget next month.
The nursery is based in the Old Slipper Baths, a 19th-century building in Barrack Yard, off North Road, Brighton.
The report – to the council’s Children, Young People and Skills Committee – said that the nursery received a £104,000 subsidy from the council.
It was given an extra £68,000 of “pressure funding” this year to prevent a budget shortfall as running costs soared.
But, the report said: “A condition survey on the Slipper Bath building, carried out in 2019, highlighted specific defects and estimated the building required circa £500,000 investment going forward.
“The main purpose of the survey was to establish the condition of the internal and external fabric together with the mechanical and electrical services in order to maintain the building in a good wind and watertight condition over a 15-year forecast.
“The survey highlighted several areas of work which included brick and stonework, the building’s heating system, light fittings and roofing.
“However, the building has deteriorated since the report was carried out and construction industry costs have spiralled by an estimated 46 per cent which means building costs have significantly increased since the 2019 estimate.
“Given the current financial constraints, identifying funding to repair and improve the building plus the ongoing running costs is not feasible nor cost-effective.
“The nursery is part of the Old Slipper building and (it) is not well suited for nursery provision due to its long narrow layout and lack of free access to a limited outside space.”
A fire risk assessment carried out last August found that internal doors needed upgrading, along with door closers linked to the fire alarm system and repairs to an external fire escape.
“Blown” plasterwork was found in the three rooms used by the youngest children which, the report said, may be linked to damp.
If the nursery closed, it would not be until after the summer term to minimise disrupting the children.
The nursery currently has 47 children on its roll. More than half of them are due to start school in September while 12 per cent are under two.
The report said that they would be helped to find places in an area with 34 other nurseries that accept younger children.
Bright Start was recently rated “good” with outstanding features by Ofsted, the official education watchdog.
Suda Perera, who presented the petition last month, is due to ask the Children, Young People and Skills Committee how the council plans to find places for children affected by the closure “given the crisis of recruitment in early years”.
She also wants to know the cost of any mitigation measures that might cancel out savings from closing Bright Start.
The committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm on Monday (9 January). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Looks like yet another example of our City council displaying its ‘Intellectual Dishonesty’!
Every public body, and every incorporated entity, has a clear Duty of Care to protect and manage its assets in a prudent financial way, surely?
So what should that core principle of ‘Good Stewardship’ mean to our council’s senior officers, and to our Councillors democratically elected to represent the best interests of taxpayers (plus those of visitors and local businesses not having a vote) by firstly ensuring that adequate operational plans are in place to guide the work of our council’s paid staff, and then to both monitor adherence to such Plans or, if circumstances change during the life of a Plan, to then have amendments thereto proposed for open debate by Councillors in the relevant committee.
In greater detail every Council asset needs to have it’s own individual Total Life Cycle Plan, showing the estimated, then the actual, capital and revenue funding required from acquisition to disposal of that specific asset.
For vehicles that’s quite simple. There are oceans of data available to calculate the full economic life-cycle finances of vehicles in daily use (albeit high-end special purpose vehicles, such as our expensive Mercedes 4×4 highway gritters, need special attention to get at least 25 years of reliable service from this equipment, which might travel less than 2000 miles in a year; such as pre-buying spare parts subject to ageing and long-term storing them with special protection. To avoid Mercedes saying after a while: ‘Sorry, No Longer Available!’ etc).
But our council holds many heritage buildings on our behalf, so what then?
In such cases decisions need to be taken as to what further length of Economic Service Life to budget for, as well as defining end-of-life disposition of the asset and/or its site.
And for Listed Buildings? For them either an agreed case has to be made for demolition by a stated date (which will often require replacement by a new-build equivalent). For which production of a life-cycle budget is not rocket-science to RICS-registered property professionals!
And where future demolition of an LB cannot be contemplated, such as for the Royal Pavilion, then common-sense suggests the preparation of a rolling 100-year budget, with relevant parts of that budget being reviewed and updated at whatever intervals (probably in a range of 10 to 50 years) a RICS Chartered Surveyor advises.
And specifically for the Slipper Bath premises?
Well, every operational unit of the council is supposed to pay, out of its annual Revenue Budget, the equivalent of ‘rent’ to the council’s General Fund account for,its use of the asset.
So those, councillors and taxpayers, defending the excellent children’s services provided from the Slipper Baths premises should not be bullied by ‘Fake News’ threats of £500k needed now for maintenance!
The Slipper Baths have been Council property for many decades, indeed they were probably constructed by Brighton Corporation? So there should be a mountain of data about the fabric, and what maintenance should be planned to be done at what future dates?
It’s not as though we recently purchased the buildings, and we’re now discovering hidden defects not found in a pre-purchase survey!
As the above article reports a Condition Survey was conducted in 2019, apparently stating what works were needed (and hopefully when?).
Thus, and as theoretically the council’s General Fund should have reserved enough money for maintenance costs, it looks like all those noble defenders need to demand: ‘Pay out the money for the works now, because you should already have budgeted for them, with your decades of experirnce of owning the Slippet Baths, and your charging the council’s children’s nursery an annual notional internal ‘rent’ for using the buildings?’.
Also, for the sake of completeness, there’s no indication of any costs due to an Act-of-God, such as a tornado (any risk from lightning should be prevented by a good installation of lightning conductors, to also protect the occupants).
So Councillors, please, please, get to grips with the fundamentals of this issue, and do not be cowed by empty threats!
The repeated attempts to use fake data, to support a putative threat, have been an inexcusable aspect of our ‘Bullying Council’ at too many times over the past 25 years!
So now is the time for you all to END this inexcusable bullying (by a public body which we pay for) once and for all, and so to save an excellent municipal children’s service, surely?