Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (see contact details below) by midday on Thursday 30 July, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:
· at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not
wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who
may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
Mrs Caroline Garrod attended the meeting to read out the following statement:
My husband and I have discussed the report at great length. Although in principle we are happy that Cauwood will continue but we have deep reservations and concerns that the report in its current state doesn’t outline what the future of Cauwood etc will be.
Before Natasha went to Cauwood we spent over a year transitioning her to somewhere she could go after she finished at Henshaw’s College, we thought it was the right fit for her but sadly we were wrong and it all came crashing down around us.
Natasha is very rigid in her routines and before she goes to bed she asks us the same thing every night, ‘where am I going tomorrow and who with’. She started to say, ‘not there again’ and not sleeping because the anxiety was starting to show. She was reluctant to get into her taxi. Her PA at the time in the taxi was brilliant with her and they had a strong bond. She told me that she was quieter in the taxi on those days and didn’t see her bubbly self. She would go into the building reluctantly and was always keen to come home at the end of the day.
One day I got a phone call from the placement saying you need to come and get her as she had attacked a member of staff. I was shocked and all the signals started to kick in, her
reluctance, her comments, her anxiety, the non-sleeping and I knew deep down something
was wrong.
I contacted the taxi as they had only dropped her o 20 mins before and asked them if they could go back and get her. On arrival Natasha was waiting in the car park with the member of staff who had been allocated to her that day, she was crying, shaking and physically upset and she clung to her PA sobbing saying ‘please take me home’. She was quiet on the way home and to this day won’t tell us what happened. Yes, we had a meeting with the staff, but we never got to the bottom of it. The only information we got was that there had been an issue with one of the other young people and Natasha needed to leave the room. Her exit route was blocked, and she needed to get out. She pushed the member a member of staff into a wall as her anxiety was heightened. She felt scared and trapped and to her that terrifies her as they were blocking her from leaving the room. She needed to get to her safe space, and that didn’t happen. The whole incident left us all traumatised and that is one of reasons we are deeply concerned.
After the incident we spent a long time with her previous social worker trying to come up with a
way forward. We agreed on Cauwood. We went to visit it again and spent time there and
came to the conclusion that it could work for Natasha. With the dedication and care from
Ryedale Special Families staff and the Cauwood staff we slowly transitioned Natasha into
Cauwood. It took us months, but we needed to make sure she was happy and enjoyed her time there. We now have a ‘happy Tash’ again and she loves her time at Cauwood.
Before we agree to this report, we as parents need to know where the building is, more detail on how the new Cauwood is going to work, what are the plans etc.
The reason she goes to Cauwood is because of the staff, yes we have been told they will be
going. It’s locality, in a quiet area. The relaxed feel and the openness of the building. RSF is the same. Relaxed, open, well-spaced out etc.
We cannot let Natasha go through that again; it took her months to get over it if not longer. We
had to increase her anxiety medicine which in turn caused its own issues as sadly she couldn’t
tolerate the increase, and it made her unwell.
This and many other reasons are why we are so passionate about Cauwood. We cannot let the report go through as it is as we need a happy Tash. With everything else that is going on at our home with my husband’s illness I myself physically cannot cope with this failing for her and I am not prepared to let this fail.
I hope you understand and can we please make sure that all the guarantees are in place before we accept this final report.
Councillor Keane Duncan attended the meeting to make a statement in favour of the proposed way forward. He noted that it was about protecting and improving the service, and not about the bricks and mortar. He noted that the associated petition was started at a time when there was no real understanding of what would replace the Cauwood day centre, and he was pleased to note that as a result of officers listening to users feedback, the proposal in the Executive report was now supported in principle by the users and their families subject to the current facility remaining open until the new facilities being up and running.
Councillor Lindsay Burr attended the meeting to speak about her concerns in regard to the proposal within the Executive report. She drew attention to paragraphs 4.3.4; 4.3.7; and stressed the need to retain the valued elements of the current service and to continue to provide bespoke solutions for those requiring tailored support. She also expressed concern about the report’s suggestion in paragraph 7.1 that this was about achieving savings.
She was disappointed to note that the scrutiny committee had not been made aware of the plans as they were being developed or consulted during the process. She suggested that some parents had only been made aware of the proposed replacement site as late as yesterday (3 August 2026), and asked that the Committee consider undertaking a review to ensure the appropriate safeguards are in place going forward. In light of her concerns she asked that the committee seek the following:
· Monthly detailed reports on how works are progressing, in line with parents needs at front and foremost
· A detailed timeline of works, locations and facility specifications detailing provision, including changeable facilities in Malton.
· Full details of budgets set aside for closure and refit/refurbishment of all premises needed for the continuation of services.
In response, Abigail Barron Director for Health & Adult Services thanked Mrs Garrod for her statement and for acknowledging that she and her husband are pleased with the recommendation that the Cauwood Service would continue.
She acknowledged the ongoing concerns that had been raised and accepted that it could be difficult to fully understand the impact of the recommendations without further detail about the future arrangements for the service. She stressed that whilst the proposal was to close the existing building, it was not about closing the whole service and that the intention was to continue to deliver the Cauwood service, in a way that enabled wider opportunities for not only the current users but to be able to reach out to new people who could benefit from what the service could offer.
She confirmed that in order to progress to the next stage of transformation, it was important that a decision was taken regarding the closure of the current building. She went on to reassure Mrs Garrod, and all the families connected with the service, that there was a clear plan in place.
She highlighted the Council’s commitment to ensuring that service users and their families, and staff were actively involved in shaping and delivering the plans and confirmed that the consultation feedback showed that Cauwood was much more than the building and the importance of maintaining a trusted staff team. Also, that for some people a stable building base for the service was important and required.
Abigail Barron went on to confirm:
· The Council had been in active discussions for some time with a local provider in the Malton area who was really keen to work with the council around a building base and offer additional opportunities for people. Those arrangements would be confirmed once a decision had been made about the existing building.
· The planned use of the council-owned space at 5 Whitby Road in Pickering (previously used as a day centre), as a further base for people who use the service.
· The aim to develop a core and cluster model with 2 key core locations within Ryedale alongside several cluster opportunities for people within existing community settings.
· The same team of care and support staff would continue working as part of the new Cauwood Service, providing continuity and maintaining the trusted relationships that were so important.
· Throughout this time, the service had continued to work closely with families and individuals to review their support needs. Through those conversations, a range of differing outcomes and aspirations had been identified, including that not everyone had an ongoing need for a building-based service.