New Community Hall
Below is a statement read out by John Bridge (Village Hall Committee) at the January Parish Council Meeting, following the appearance of a letter, posted through the letter boxes of a number of homes in the village, giving false information as to the funding of the proposed New Community Hall.
I am here to make a statement of fact. I have no wish to comment, in detail, on the note put through my door recently, other than to say I know the truth. I have been involved with the task of trying to provide this village with a Community Hall fit for the 21st century over the last 15 years. In all that time, I have been honest and open in all my dealings, indeed for many years I was the individual who kept the parish well informed with project developments via my regular reports in the Village Scene. I can vouch for the integrity of all those associated with the New Community Hall over the years and I am saddened to think that the time and effort we have all put in are so often challenged by a vocal minority.
And now for the accurate facts about funding. ……. Our new hall & associated work will cost in the region of £700,000. It cannot exceed £750,000 as that is the maximum build cost that one of our chosen funders will allow. At present via a 106 agreement with Torridge District Council, Pearce Construction, the prospective builder will donate a sum of £325,000 towards the building of the hall. This gives us a sizeable start in our bid to raise the required amount. Our existing hall, on current valuation, is worth £100,000. Added to this we are currently pursuing a sum of £20,000 through the Community Council of Devon which has funds tailor made for this kind of project and if successful (and we can see no obvious reason why it shouldn’t be,) Torridge District Council would match fund this amount giving a further £40,000 to the pot. On top of this sum would be a further £35,000 of our own monies raised by the community over the years. This amount would have been more but, of course, we have been spending money to sustain the project, particularly in architect’s fees. The total of all these contributions will be in the region of £500,000 !
This sum, in itself, would be sufficient to see a New Hall up and running, with key elements in place and an opportunity to complete the build, to our specification, as and when further funding was available. However, we are also in the process of applying for Big Lottery Funding. A branch of this Fund is entitled ‘Reaching Communities’ and is aimed at areas of multiple deprivation ! We, like it or not, along with the rest of the Torridge area, fall in to this category and I have already been given the special coding which entitles us to apply for Lottery support. There is no guarantee of obtaining this funding, there never is, but our bid – to replace a hall well past its sell by date, to create, for our Preschool, a dedicated base alongside our Village Primary School, to see the Primary School itself benefit from a sizeable hall, offering facilities for PE and Drama lessons as well as Special Performances, to achieve a far more welcoming environment for our hall users and, of course, the opportunity for locals to enjoy Wedding Receptions and Family Parties in their own backyard……. our bid is a strong one ! In conversation with one of the Big Lottery Team South West recently, what became clear to me is the benefit we have of such a full funding pot before our approach to them. They find themselves so often trying to help organisations who do not have such a solid funding base. Our up front matched funding strengthens our case considerably.
In conclusion, I need to add that the reason why the subject of a parish precept has arisen stems from a question on a funding application form. “If you have a Parish Council and they are not contributing towards your project, please explain why?” Personally, I have no objection to a “small” – and it would be small – precept to support the future of our village and strengthen the appeal of our funding application. Many Parish Councils draw a small precept! That’s my personal view and some will agree others will disagree but as I hope I have proved this evening, talk of a precept to fund £425,000 is just nonsense and I am quite sure that the majority of sensible citizens in this village will have realised this fact already.
Comment sent to J G Schofield by Patrick Finan: 20th January 2013
I feel I should respond to the presentation to parish council made by John Bridge in his capacity as a member of the village hall development steering group.
He opened his comments by stating that “I know the truth”, thereby implying that the “note recently put through my door” did not reflect the truth. When the “note” was compiled the fact was that Cllr. Lloyd had proposed, at the December Parish Council meeting, the Parish Council consider making a donation to the new community hall on the precept, leaving the amount to be decided at the January Parish Council meeting. In the absence of any figures provided by Cllr. Lloyd, I said in the “note” that as the cost of build was £750,00.00 (the amount stated at Outline Planning stage, approved in 2008) and the donation to be provided by the developer was £325,00.00, this leaves a shortfall of £425,00.00. I challenge him or any pro lobby person to refute the figures. On top of this figure is the additional sum of £50,000.00 for ancillary village hall parking.
In the ten years I have lived in the village I have constantly challenged why applications for lottery funding were not being made, to be told that I had no understanding of the difficulty in applying for and obtaining funding. The most recent occasion was at a meeting in TDC Riverbank House, by Cllr. Lloyd (funding has been made to parishes throughout the country). Suddenly, miraculously, funding is available from all quarters. After John Bridge’s declared 15 years of great application, we have arrived at a very sad and sorry place. Parishioners had been informed that we would be provided with a village hall with parking, a football pitch with changing facilities more befitting the village than those existing, and play facilities for children, all to be provided prior to building any of the 33 (9 affordable) houses in the development plan (thereby providing protection to our village against funding running out. Let us now examine what we are as a result of the strenuous efforts made by Mr. Bridge and the Village Hall Committee. The village hall will not be built by the developer, and the less than half contribution will not be provided until the sale of 20 houses is realised. The affordable housing will be affected in similar manner. The number of houses required to satisfy the demands made by the developer has increased to 40 (8 affordable) The football pitch has been sacrificed, too expensive. It is on the cards that an effluent pumping station will be incorporated into the development, South West Water having stated that the present facility is inadequate to service any extra housing, the pumping station being the cheap option (the effect of this one item alone will surely devalue properties in the village). The issue of traffic speeding into and through the village, flagged up over many years, is not being addressed.
As to his claim to openness, may I remind him that, at a recent village hall committee AGM, he amongst others rejected a request made by parishioners to allow public access to village hall committee meetings. The charge has been made over the years by many people that a secret society and “we know best” prevails.
How Mr Bridge can claim that Buckland Brewer has been best served by his and his associates’ efforts is, quite frankly, beyond me. To view what has been going on over the 15 year period of his involvement in the efforts to provide the parish with a new village hall, as a successful achievement, is remarkable. A more balanced assessment would conclude that it represents total failure to date.
We are left with, very unfortunately, a hotchpotch approach to the village hall development, the content being arranged behind closed doors and with no regard to concerned parishioners, the emphasis being concentrated on the needs of the developer and landowners, with the costs and consequences to be suffered by we parishioners.
I conclude by saying, somewhat in anger and frustration, we parishioners are getting what we deserve.
Patrick Finan.
Buckland Brewer parishioner.
John Bridge has included the sum of £100,000 from the sale of the old hall in his figure of £500,000 “The total of all these contributions will be in the region of £500,000 ! This sum, in itself, would be sufficient to see a New Hall up and running, with key elements in place and an opportunity to complete the build, to our specification, as and when further funding was available. ”
However, the minutes of the meeting of the steering group say “Jane revisited the Trust Deed – Jane reaffirmed that until a “like for like” new building was up & running, we would not be permitted to sell the existing premises as we could not deny the community use of a suitable hall (Official Custodian).”
Therefore, at what stage does the steering group envisage selling the old hall and how will they fill the gap in funding?