This is a copy of the letter that we sent today to all of the Cabinet Members who will be considering and voting on closing the RAGC next Thursday evening. It refers to the report issued this week and was sent by our Chair, Andrea Scrivens.
Dear Cabinet Member,
I am writing on behalf of the Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre (RAGC) in response to the cabinet report entitled Closure of Retail Operations and Review of Support Services from the Rural Activities Garden Centre.
I wish to express several concerns about the report which I will group under the themes of purpose, costs and consultation.
Purpose of the RAGC
- The report repeatedly refers to the cost of running the centre and the fact that it is running at a loss as a retail operation. Whilst acknowledging the need for councils to make efficient use of public funds, I would like to draw your attention to the first paragraph of the Supporting Information section of the report which states that the RAGC “was designed to provide educational and supported learning opportunities for residents with additional needs including learning difficulties, disabilities, and mental health conditions with an emphasis on horticultural therapy.” The phrase “it also operates as a retail garden centre” clearly indicates that the retail aspect was not its primary purpose.
- If the Council does consider that turning a profit as a retail outlet is a vital part of the running of the centre, then the operational model would need to change and this need to be conveyed to the Centre Manager. Why has no attempt, so far as I am aware, been made to work with staff and other stakeholders to give them the chance to develop the centre in such a way as to enable it to make up the shortfall? I urge you, as a Cabinet Member, to request at the very least that the centre be given a sensible amount of time to show that the centre can become a viable retail outlet.
Costs
- The costs provided in the report are insufficiently detailed, making any meaningful comparison between current and projected costs impossible. There is no breakdown of costs of the proposed operating model: we have only staffing and non-staffing costs. I would urge all cabinet members to seek a more detailed breakdown which specifies and quantifies the alternative provision.
- The figures in the table in the section on Financial Implications provide only two years’ data for the RAGC which show that the income has dropped from £71k in 23/24 to £69k in 24/25, a difference of £2k, if I have understood the table correctly. Somewhat puzzlingly, in the executive summary on the first page of the report, the income is described as “down 42% year on year.” I would welcome further explanation of those figures as the sales income being down £2k in the last financial year does not equate to 42%.
- There is insufficient information as to how the projected figure for capital investment was arrived at. In the section “Financial Implications” the projected capital cost of keeping the centre open is put at £1,251k, but there is no indication as to the period over which this would need to be invested so the suggested cost to the Council of £95k per annum does not make sense. In the section “Corporate Finance” the same projected costs are shown as £1,261k, a difference of £10k. Can you explain why?
- The report states that closing the retail operation ”reflects prudent financial management of taxpayer funds.” It appears, however that no thought has been given to the unforeseen – and potentially costly – consequences of the decision to close the centre such as, for example, the potential need for additional social care support for volunteers such as my own son whose already fragile mental health is likely to be adversely affected by the closure.
- The report states that the 2025/26 budget includes an income target of £167k. There is no explanation of how this figure was derived especially when the 2023/24 income was £71k. This indicates a lack of financial awareness when budgeting. Additionally, there is no reference to how this was communicated to the Centre Manager and what plans were in place to achieve this target and thus how it has failed.
- The report claims that the estimated redundancy costs are £171k. This is more than the shortfall of £137k on which the decision to close the retail operations of the Rural Activities Garden Centre is based. Furthermore, as there are no actual costings of training and social care to relocate and there is no other alternative explored by the Council, at the time of making the decision, according to this report, the Cabinet Member’s decision is not making prudent financial sense.
Consultation
- The report makes many assumptions about the views of current stakeholders regarding the provision at RAGC yet, at the time of the meeting on 30th May to announce the proposed closure no consultation had taken place at all. The meeting on 30th May can itself hardly be regarded as part of the consultation process, given that no reasonable adjustments were made to make the meeting accessible to the very people who will be most affected by the decision. I believe that the council is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 in this regard. It is also in direct contradiction of the reference in the section “Resident Benefit and Consultation” to the council’s duty to mange transitions with “inclusive consultation.” There was nothing inclusive about the meeting on 30th May for people who have a learning disability and /autism some of whom may have additional sensory needs such as deafness or a vision impairment.
- There is no mention in the report of the Council having sought expert advice from professionals with expertise in the field of learning disability. I note that the Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment, on a horticultural social care provision, is signed by the Director of Environment.
- I take exception to the statement in this report and elsewhere that that the new proposal offers opportunities for “more diverse and meaningful engagement.” Does the Council believe that the current offering is not meaningful enough? The consensus among volunteers and their families at the meeting on 30th May seemed to be that the current offering is more than meaningful enough already. How will RAGC be replicated?
In conclusion, I appeal to all cabinet members to reject the recommendations in the report which provides insufficient information on which to make a critical decision about the future of the RAGC.
Yours faithfully,
Andrea Scrivens
Chair, Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre
We urge all members and residents to contact their ward councillors to express their feelings about the importance of the RAGC.
