News

Taking questions at the beginning of the meeting Tony De Ste Criox asked if the Parish Council would give a pledge to keep the Village Hall open, to which Council Chairman replied simply: "Yes."

Cllr Callahan speaking later told the audience, the council had no intention of closing the building and they (the council) had never said it would close.

The reply appeared to wrong foot the fifty or so Village Hall supporters who, according to reports, were under the impression the council were about to close the hall.

Two meetings have been held between  the Council Chairman and Clerk  and Secretary and Treasurer of the Village Hall Management Committee (VHMC)  on 16 September 2009  and a further meeting on 30th September 2009 when the Parish Council decided to bring in barrister, John Shelley to chair the meeting  at which the Parish Council put forward its concerns in the morning session and the VHMC attended in the afternoon and put forward its views.

Following these meetings and the disclosure that the VHMC has now appointed a new Chairman, Tony De Ste Croix and set up fundraising and finance committees the council unanimously voted  for the VHMC to continue running the Village Hall following the resolving of differences and concerns between the two parties.

John Shelley’s report of the findings of the meeting is attached below and sets out conclusions and options.

John Shelley's Hawkinge Village Hall report.

1 REPORT ON THE MATTER OF THE HAWKINGE VILLAGE HALL

This follows an examination of a number of documents, a brief inspection of the Hall and 4 hours of meetings with members of the Charity Trustee and the Village Hall Committee on the 30 September 2009.

1. This Report comprises:-

2. fact finding and history

3. the options for change

4. a brief summary of parties positions

5 conclusions

2 THE FACTS AND HISTORY

2.1 The hall is believed to have been constructed as a 'memorial hall' (the Hall) after the Great War in about 1920/30.

2.2 In the 1970's for reasons which are believed to have been a mix of financial and possibly managerial problems it is to be inferred that the future of the Hall may have been at risk and accordingly a 'referendum' was held and a scheme was put to the Charity Commission under which (in 1980) the freehold ownership of the Hall was given to the Hawkinge Parish Council (the PC) as Charity Trustee and the management of the Hall was to be undertaken by the Village Hall Management Committee (the VHMC).

2.3 In the 1990's plans were drawn up to construct what is now the new Community Centre (the CC) and in about 1993 another referendum or ballot was initiated to determine the options for the future of the Hall which included the demolition of the building as the new CC came on stream. Whether the demolition proposal was merely seen as an option at the time or whether it was a specific intention is now largely academic because the building was not demolished and in the apparent absence of a positive decision to keep both buildings the opportunity for public funding by way of capital investment in the Hall never took effect at that time.

2.4 The accounts for the Hall for the year ending February 2008 (excluding income from grants and donations etc) shows a net income of approx £8,700 as against the running costs and repairs (excluding major works eg the boiler) of approx £8,500; effectively a break even point in practical terms. There are capital sums of just over £8,000 in bank and savings deposits.

2.5 A structural survey undertaken by the PC in April 2009 (taken in conjunction with the views of the parties concerned) indicates that capital expenditure on structural works within say the next 5 years is likely to be in the order of not less than £10,000 and more realistically in the order of £20,000; or quite possibly more. It is not within the remit of this Report to extrapolate figures but clearly this does require a detailed costing exercise. Whatever may be the actual figure it is clear that the ordinary income stream of the Hall contains no operating surplus from which the sort of capital expenditure can realistically be financed. Even if the capital funds currently retained as bank deposits and savings were to be utilised that may well prove to be inadequate and to use that resource might seriously expose the Hall to the risk that unbudgeted contingencies could so deplete their resources that the financial viability of the building might become an issue. That may have been one of the reasons why, in 1980, there were serious issues about the viability of the Hall which led to the transfer of the property to the PC as Charity Trustee.

2.6 As the freehold owner and Charity Trustee the PC is required to ensure that the charity property is, for example, not used for purposes which are inconsistent with the charity objects and to ensure that third party claims against the property are defended. In the event of any perceived need to carry out any changes to the charity as set out in the 1980 conveyance and trust deed; that would require the intervention and approval of the Charity Commission as was the case in 1980. Equally, were it to have been the case in 1993, at the time of the then referendum that the property was to have been transferred to the CC that also would have invited a scheme of reconstruction to be approved by the Charity Commission. The role of the VHMC is also governed by the charity objects plus it is implicit in their role that they administer the trust property, that they are at liberty to raise money for the charity and to use such monies for the objects of the charity. It is not open to the VHMC to take over the functions of the PC or vice-versa; the roles are complementary.

2.7 It is axiomatic of the position of trustees that they are not under any obligation to finance their own charity; indeed it would be an unusual expectation for the trustees of any trust to contribute to the charity since that is not a normal role for a trustee. Therefore, if the PC makes any financial contribution to the Hall it must do so strictly as a public body having regard to its general obligations as to the expenditure of public monies and if it chooses to make grants or other public money available it may do so on any conditions which are legitimate within its role as an elected body with the power to administer public monies. Therefore, it is for the PC is to ensure that it understand the limits of their remit as Charity Trustee and also that the members (and the VHMC) also understand the distinction between the PC acting as an elected public administrative body and its parallel role when acting in its private capacity as a Charity Trustee of the Hall.

3 THE OPTIONS FOR CHANGE

3 The following options should not be regarded as the only options or that each is mutually exclusive of the other but they were put forward as topics for consideration and debate at the meeting of 30 September 2009. Equally, it is not intended in this Report to analyse each and every consequence of each option because they are all dynamic options and whichever course were to be followed would inevitably produce many different and possibly unforeseen consequences.

3.1 DO NOTHING. This invites the proposition that the status quo is maintained and things continue as they have since 1980. That must carry the inherent risk that any shortfall on capital expenditure may lead to the closure of the Hall either on the grounds of safety or functionality or both. The historic year by year revenues generated by lettings etc are self evidently inadequate to finance the necessary structural works which are likely to be needed. Raising additional capital from third party grants/donations and/or from an increase in the charges for using the facilities are the main options facing the VHMC.

3.2 DISSOLVE THE 1980 TRUST. This invites the proposition that the Charity Commission are invited to approve the winding up of the Trust and a transfer of the Hall to a similar trust which in this case would probably but not necessarily be the trustees of the CC. The Charity Commission might reasonably expect a referendum along the lines of that undertaken in 1993 and a degree of consensus (not necessarily uniformity of opinions) by the parties concerned. This option does not implicitly or explicitly call either for the retention or the demolition of the Hall; it simply addresses the management issues.

3.3 MERGER OF MANAGEMENTS. This invites the proposition that the PC continues as freeholder and Charity Trustee but the management of the Hall and the CC is undertaken by a single body of persons. This Report does not seek to make a value judgement whether the two buildings are operating in competition with each other or that each fulfils a complementary role.

3.4 DEMOLITION OF THE HALL. This is not so much an option in its own right but it sits on top of the other three main options. It is implicit in the 1980 scheme approved by the Charity Commission that the referendum at that time was in favour of the retention of the Hall. On the other hand, the 1993 referendum appears to have gone the other way but the increase in population over the last 16 years may well be a material factor in any current decision to retain the Hall.

4. THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.

Any Report which attempted to summarise all of the many views of the PC representatives and of the VHMC arising in 2 separate meetings on the 30 September (in a total of 4 hours of debate) will inevitably fail to record the views of some of the representatives. However, since these meetings were not held as decision making meetings this part of the Report is going to be short and will simply summarise what appeared to be comments reflecting some of the key elements.

a. The Options for Change were in themselves a reflection of the different and varied opinions of the representatives.

b. There was a recognition by a number of representatives that there is a case to be made out for the retention of the Hall and I have been asked in particular by the VHMC that the PC are invited to make a declaratory statement that the PC have no intention to demolish the Hall. (I add my own rider to this namely that to demolish the building without re-visiting the referendum held in 1993 might sit uneasily with the social and economic changes since 1993 but also on the other hand, that the continued retention of the Hall, however desirable that may be, also needs to reflect the fact that some changes will be necessary to make that happen).

c. The charges made for the use of the Hall require a review as also does the way in which both buildings either do or do not work together to satisfy the social needs of the community. (I add my own rider to this namely that if the Hall does not increase its charges it may find that it is cash starved to the point where it is no longer able to function efficiently).

d. There is a perceived need to undertake a specific cost analysis for the finance needed for capital works for the Hall. This is partly addressed in the Structural Survey of April 2009 undertaken on behalf of the PC but that contained no detailed costings and no costings at all for some items. (I add my own rider that this is an important exercise without which there will likely be recurring and un-budgeted financial problems).

e. There is a perceived need to have a specific plan for the raising of the finance needed to carry out the capital works. (I add my own rider that this needs to have a timetable as well as identifiable and specific funding commitments otherwise it may turn out to be little more than a 'hope and expectation' exercise).

f. The prospect that the PC might be prepared to inject public funds may have to be done with conditions. (I add my own rider that it is quite normal for grant funding to be undertaken with conditions and I commend it to all parties to accept that this is the normal practice)

5 CONCLUSIONS

There are certain core financial issues (these are set out very briefly in this Report) from which it is proper to conclude that the Hall is unlikely to have a viable long term future unless changes are introduced. The Options for Change which are set out in this Report have already been the subject of debate and it is now for the parties to review their own positions in the light of those options (or variations on them) to see which of those options are most likely to work.

John Shelley

John Shelley 5 October 2009