Agenda item

This item is to consider a report and presentation in relation to transition into the Castle View Day Centre from the existing two sites at Maple Avenue, Maltby and Elliot Centre, Herringthorpe.

This item was to receive a report and presentation in relation to transition into the Castle View Day Centre from the existing two sites at Maple Avenue, Maltby and Elliot Centre, Herringthorpe.

The Chair welcomed Carolie Hine, Change Lead, Service Improvement and Governance, Ian Spicer, Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health and Cllr Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health to the meeting and invited Cllr Baker-Rodgers to introduce the report and presentation.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health introduced the report, providing both contextual background and an overview of the transition process, they emphasised the significance of the development within the wider transformation of learning disability services in the borough.

Members were informed that the Castle View Day Centre had been designed specifically to meet the needs of adults with autism and learning disabilities, including individuals with complex and high-level support requirements. The facility was described as an exemplar of accessible and inclusive design, with all aspects of the building carefully considered to support service users. This included the layout and flow of the building, accessible drop-off arrangements, wide corridors and doorways, adaptable and partitionable internal spaces, and the use of colour schemes to support navigation and sensory comfort. External areas, including a purpose-designed sensory garden, were also highlighted as providing a calm, therapeutic environment for those accessing the service. The Centre was reported to support 38 individuals, including four fully health-funded placements, and was staffed by approximately 35 frontline workers alongside management and administrative support.

The Commission were advised that the development of Castle View formed part of the Council’s wider strategic ambition to modernise services and ensure that provision was aligned with both current and future needs. It was emphasised that this was not simply a replacement of outdated facilities, but a transformation to a modern, person-centred service model, enabling improved outcomes, enhanced user experience, and greater dignity and independence for those accessing support. The Centre now operated as the continuation of the former ‘Reach’ day services under a redesigned model of care.

In relation to the transition process itself, Members were advised that this had been subject to extensive planning and delivered through a deliberately phased approach. It was reported that, prior to any relocation, all individuals accessing the service had undergone reviews through Adult Social Care, and individualised transition plans had been developed to reflect each person’s specific needs, preferences, and readiness to move. The overarching aim of this approach had been to minimise anxiety, support emotional wellbeing, and ensure continuity of care throughout the process. It was explicitly noted that a single-day transition had been considered but rejected, as it would not have been appropriate for individuals with complex needs, despite being operationally more straightforward from a service delivery perspective.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health stressed that comprehensive engagement had taken place with all relevant stakeholders. Staff had been formally consulted on the new operating model, with support from Human Resources, including consideration of changes to working patterns and environments. Families, carers, and service users had been engaged throughout the process via newsletters, meetings, and visits to the new facility, ensuring transparency and opportunities for feedback. This inclusive and communicative approach was reported to have contributed significantly to the success of the transition and the high levels of acceptance and enthusiasm observed.

It was reported that the physical transition commenced in the week beginning 11 May and had been completed by the end of May, earlier than initially anticipated. Members were informed that this accelerated timeline had been driven by service users themselves, many of whom chose to move sooner than planned after visiting the new facility and experiencing the improved environment. The phased transition had allowed numbers to increase incrementally over a three-week period, ensuring that staffing arrangements and support levels were continuously adjusted to maintain safety and quality of care. By the end of the transition, all individuals had successfully relocated to Castle View, and the previous facilities had been vacated and formally handed back on 1 June 2026.

Officers emphasised that the transition had been underpinned at all times by a focus on customer safety and individual need. It was recognised that service users presented with a diverse range of needs and levels of understanding, and therefore required tailored and responsive support. The ability to adapt the transition pace, particularly in response to users’ eagerness to move earlier, was highlighted as evidence of a flexible, person-centred approach. The Committee was advised that this adaptability, combined with strong coordination and communication between officers, staff, families and carers, had ensured a smooth and successful transition process.

The Committee further heard that the co-location of services within Castle View had generated a number of operational and social benefits. These included the integration of previously separate cohorts, enabling greater social interaction and community-building among service users, as well as improved access to high-quality equipment and purpose-built facilities, including sensory rooms and therapeutic external spaces. Staff were reported to have responded positively to the new working environment, and service users were described as engaged, content, and benefiting significantly from the improved setting.

In providing additional context, officers advised that the opening of Castle View represented the culmination of a long-term transformation programme for learning disability services, spanning approximately a decade. This programme had been underpinned by a strategic commitment from the Council to retain direct operational responsibility for supporting those with the highest level of need, including individuals requiring one-to-one or two-to-one care. The development of Castle View was therefore positioned not only as a service improvement, but as the final component in fulfilling this commitment.

Members were reminded that the facility served individuals who often had the least ability to advocate for themselves, and that the investment in such a high-quality, inclusive environment demonstrated a commitment to equality, equity, and inclusion in service provision.

During the discussion, members expressed strong support for the development and the outcomes achieved. Feedback provided from a member who had visited the facility, describing it as ‘absolutely amazing’ and highlighting the quality of the environment, including the sensory spaces and overall design. It was acknowledged that the investment represented value for money in delivering appropriate, high-quality care for individuals with complex needs. A minor observation was made regarding the use of the term ‘customers’ to describe service users, with a preference expressed for more person-centred terminology; however, this did not detract from the overall positive reception of the report.

In conclusion, the Commission were asked to note that the transition to Castle View had been delivered successfully, ahead of schedule, and in a manner that prioritised the needs, experiences, and wellbeing of service users. The Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health recognised the development as a significant milestone in the transformation of learning disability services in Rotherham, delivering a modern, inclusive, and high-quality environment that supported improved outcomes for some of the borough’s most vulnerable residents.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for the report and presentation and invited questions and comments from members.

Councillor Thorp raised a concern he had received regarding accessibility within associated residential accommodation, specifically relating to wheelchair access and the need for additional aids to enable entry and exit. He asked whether more proactive planning could be undertaken to ensure that appropriate adaptations were in place prior to residents moving in.

In response, the Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health clarified that the issue related not to the Castle View Day Centre itself, but to separate housing provision, which formed part of the Council’s general housing stock rather than the day centre service. They explained that whilst properties had been designed to a higher baseline level of accessibility than standard housing, it was not possible to anticipate every individual requirement in advance. He acknowledged that, in the specific case referenced, more proactive planning could potentially have been undertaken where sufficient time allowed, but noted that individual needs could vary significantly and sometimes required adaptation post-occupation. The Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health added that the Council remained committed to ensuring that homes met the needs of residents with disabilities and that ongoing work would be undertaken to address any identified issues.

Councillor Harper asked about capacity within the new facility, specifically whether the figure of 38 represented full capacity and how the service would be future-proofed. They also queried whether there was scope for additional provision should demand increase.

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health responded that capacity was not a fixed figure in the traditional sense, as the service sought to adopt a more flexible operating model, including the potential for extended opening hours and increased days of operation. This approach would enable greater utilisation of the building without necessarily increasing physical capacity. They also explained that whilst there was physical space to accommodate more individuals, the determining factor would be the complexity of individual needs and ensuring compatibility and safe staffing ratios. The Change Lead, Service Improvement and Governance added that the referral process remained active and that there was some current capacity within existing operating hours, although precise ‘vacancy’ figures were not immediately available.

Councillor Harper wanted to understand how individuals accessed the service and whether referrals could be made directly by General Practitioners.

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health explained that, given the high level of need among those supported, individuals were typically already known to Adult Social Care and would access the service via a social worker referral. Whilst General Practitioners could make referrals, these were ordinarily channelled through social care to ensure that eligibility criteria were met and that those with the highest support needs were prioritised appropriately.  

Councillor Harrison queried how the service intended to move from describing benefits as ‘intangible and unmeasurable’ to demonstrating clear, measurable outcomes, particularly in relation to areas such as mental health, independence, and social inclusion.

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health explained that outcomes were monitored at an individual level through person-centred support plans, which identified each individual’s interests, goals, and areas for development. Progress was reviewed regularly as part of statutory processes, with adjustments made as necessary. They noted that outcomes might include increased participation in activities, reduced anxiety, or improvements in wellbeing, depending on the individual. The Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Health supplemented this by emphasising the importance of qualitative outcomes, such as individuals’ enjoyment and willingness to attend. The Change Lead, Service Improvement and Governance added that the service was developing case studies, with appropriate consent, to capture personal experiences and demonstrate impact in a more qualitative and accessible way. The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health also highlighted the importance of feedback from families and carers as an additional measure of service effectiveness, noting that their perceptions of wellbeing and behaviour changes were a key indicator of success.

Councillor Yasseen reflected on the historical context of the service and noted that the original proposals had been subject to significant public concern and prolonged campaigning. They asked whether those individuals and families who had previously opposed the changes were now engaging with and benefitting from the new service, and whether trust had been rebuilt.

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health acknowledged the complexity of the issue, explaining that change could be particularly difficult for families who had long advocated for existing provision and may have been cautious about losing established services. They emphasised that whilst the new provision had been positively received by many, it would not be appropriate to assume that all concerns had been resolved, and that rebuilding trust was an ongoing process. They also noted, however, that the continuity of staff and the quality of the new environment had contributed to positive experiences for many service users and their families.

Councillor Yasseen asked whether there was scope for the building to be utilised more widely, for example to provide additional short-break provision for families outside of standard operating hours.

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health confirmed that the Council would be open to exploring additional uses for the facility, including evenings and weekends, provided that the primary function of the service, which was supporting individuals with the highest level of need, remained safeguarded. They noted that any expansion of use would require further consideration of funding and staffing implications.  

Councillor Yasseen encouraged the maximisation of the value of the investment and emphasised their assertion that the building should not remain underutilised during periods when it was not in core use. They also asked for clarification regarding the date of the official opening event and highlighted communication issues which had resulted in some members not being informed of the revised date. Officers acknowledged this issue and offered to arrange further visits for Members who had not yet had the opportunity to attend.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for the report , presentation and considered responses to members’ questions.

Resolved:-

That the Health Select Commission:

1.    Noted the update provided in relation to the Castle View transition.

2.    Requested that a further update in relation to the performance of Castle View in relation to patient experience and outcomes in line with metrics to be agreed with the service, be presented to the Commission following the 6 month post implementation evaluation, at it’s 18 March 2027 meeting.

3.    Requested that arrangements be made for Health Select Commission Members who have not yet had the benefit of visiting the site be afforded a tour of Castle View to inform and enhance its scrutiny of the scheduled post implementation update in March 2027.