- pamelacharlwood
- Mar 14, 2025
Dear Councillor Adams King
I am writing with some observations about Stubbington Study Centre (SSC) which I ask you to consider before your Cabinet meeting next week. I appreciate the many strategic issues which are on your agenda at this time, but I believe this is a crucially important matter of public trust.
1. The presence of yourself and your cabinet colleagues throughout the Select Committee 2050 meeting last week was greatly appreciated – thank you.
2. I have attended many select committee meetings in my life but I have never known one take such a firm, unanimous, cross party position in opposition to the recommended proposal. As we heard, there were councillors whose children had used SSC and others who had not heard of it until this proposal arose. All had clearly been immensely impressed by their site visit and by what they heard from deputees at the meeting.
3. On Tuesday 11 March, the Executive of Fareham Borough Council approved the listing of SSC as an asset of community value. In doing so, they expressed surprise and disappointment at the letter dated 10 March from Rebecca Thompson, Strategic Director Land and Assets HCC: her letter drew attention to paragraph 63 of the report for your Cabinet meeting next week which states that in terms of both revenue and capital, SSC cannot cover its costs. I have attached that letter for ease of reference. Ms Thompson suggested that the report to FBC’s Executive – which quoted Hill Head Residents’ Association (HHRA) application – was incorrect and should be amended. Ms Thompson seems to ignore the fact that
a. no such statement was included in the public consultation document;
b. HCC were invited by FBC to comment on HHRA’s application for listing as an asset of community value last month and, presumably, did not do so, or at least did not raise this concern so, again, this information was not placed in the public domain;
c. this issue was not raised at the Select Committee 2050 on 6 March: officers were asked repeatedly whether the closure of SSC would have arisen if it had not been for the allocation of central government capital for secure children’s places and the reply was ‘No’;
d. perhaps most importantly, Ms Thompson’s letter quotes only part of para 63 of the report: please see the full paragraph below with the portion omitted by Ms Thompson emboldened
Para 63: “The forecast income of Stubbington Study Centre is not sufficient to cover the direct service costs, directly attributable property maintenance and required
conditional works over the next 10 years even when planned above inflation
increases to charges are applied. This includes major investment which will
be required in the immediate future on key structural features (for example a
reclad of the dining hall). This does not form part of the reasons for proposing
to close the site in this report. Separate work would need to be undertaken if
any proposals were to come forward in the future relating to the financial
sustainability of the Study Centre including consideration of the potential to
uplift to fees and charges and review the operating model. These
considerations would form part of a wider review of outdoor centres as part of
the SP25 phase 2 proposals, in the event a decision is not made to close
Stubbington SC in accordance with the proposals set out in this report.”
You will recall that concerns were expressed at the Select Committee about the amount of information which had been withheld from public scrutiny. It seems that when convenient, new information is introduced into the public domain.
4. Throughout the debate about the proposed closure of SSC, councillors, Hill Head Residents’ Association (HHRA) and others have expressed their commitment to the needs of the most vulnerable young people who need secure accommodation. Many present at the Select Committee on 6 March will have been surprised to hear that only 25 – 30% of the places at Swanwick Lodge are occupied by Hampshire young people. As those familiar with the sector know, the secure estate for young people is run, in effect, as a national resource: as the Director of Children’s Services explained, young people with specific needs and characteristics may need to be placed in a home not in Hampshire so as to accommodate their particular needs. It is regrettable that this context has not been explored more fully during the public debate and the choice has been presented starkly as Stubbington Study Centre versus secure places in Hampshire for Hampshire children. It is not as simple as that and it would be useful to know what – if any – dialogue has taken place with other authorities in the south east and south west about the regional capacity which might be developed.
5. When asked if representations had been made to DfE about the possibility of extending the deadline for the business case and therefore the availability of the £60million capital, the Director of Children’s Services said that no formal application had been made. May we hope that such an application has now been made at the highest level, involving MPs? As I commented in my deputation, one would expect that Hampshire would have both a ‘hotline’ to central government and some political capital to draw on given the recent approval to enter the first round of new Mayoral Combined County Authorities. We learnt at the Select Committee that the offer of £60million had come out of the blue from the DfE to Hampshire a year ago, doubtless reflecting the ‘Outstanding’ quality of HCC’s Children’s Services. Surely that provides further strength to the argument that, in order to get the best solution, Hampshire needs a little more time?
6. One of the most important points made at the Select Committee was the need to work collaboratively to find that best solution. As was stated, there are eleven district councils, as well as the two cities, all of which have extensive estates: none of them had even been made aware of the need for a site, let alone asked to participate in the search. Councillor House asked that a joint approach should be taken as a matter of urgency to find a suitable alternative to SSC. Has that been started, please?
I hope that the Cabinet on 18 March will not decide to close SSC but will instead follow up the lines recommended by the Select Committee and repeated in this letter.
You will see I have copied this letter to all members of Cabinet and of the Select Committee and local councillors who spoke last week, as well as Councillor Simon Martin and Hill Head borough councillors.
Yours sincerely
Pamela Charlwood
Chair Hill Head Residents’ Association