New Hall Proposal

Proposal for a replacement hall - latest updates

Update on the New community Hall proposal, by Ron James

From the August 2014 newsletter:
Note: In the newsletter, the first paragraph was edited and used on the 1st page. This is the whole article together:

The headline results of the consultation are that replies were received from 110 households and 70% of those expressing an opinion voted in favour of the proposal for a new hall. More detail can be found on the HDCA website [scroll down for this detail]. These results clearly provide encouragement and a mandate for your Committee to proceed with plans for a new community hall. All (and only) Higher Denham residents were polled, and although just less than 50% of all the households responded, in general election terms this would be seen as a good turnout and a landslide victory, so the Committee believes it is justified in taking the next steps.

It is worth looking back at the reasons for the consultation. The Committee wanted to test the level of support for a new hall because we know it will take a lot of work by a lot of people to even get the project through it’s feasibility stage, before we consider actually completing the project. From my personal point of view, I know it will take many hours of effort to secure the money needed, and we all agreed that there was no point in even starting to put in that time and effort if the residents were going to reject the idea of a new building. We are at an early stage in thinking about this project and have only done enough research to convince ourselves that a new hall is a realistic possibility. That is why we do not have all the answers yet, like exactly where the hall will be and what the design will be, but we now know it is worth spending the time to get these answers.

For example, it is not yet certain that all the necessary funding can be obtained, but, because it is such a key question for everyone, for the survey, residents were asked to assume that it would be available; in other words the question was “Assuming that the funding was in place, are you in favour of a new community building?” Nevertheless, questions on funding still topped the list and at least six more households would have said “Yes” if they were satisfied on funding. One resident asked what would be the split between grants and loans, and warned that loans are long term but nurseries, for example, come and go. It is too early to say anything on the split, but obviously the more grant we can get the better. If we have to consider a nursery, residents should take comfort from the fact that there is, and will continue to be, a demand for nurseries, and though proprietors do come and go, there is a very active trade in buying and selling existing nurseries. See, for example www.daynurseries.co.uk/forsale/ which lists over 300 for sale and some 200 recently sold, which supports the idea that an income stream from a nursery is viable over the long term.

Having said that, nothing is yet set in stone and there is more work to be done on funding, but there are two important general points to make on funding. These are; the Committee will not (and cannot) proceed unless it has the funds available, and, if that includes having to borrow money, unless we are satisfied that the interest can be paid and the loan repaid. The second point is that, without exception, the providers of funds will not make grants unless they believe the project is viable and potential lenders, including the so called Charity Banks, will not lend if they do not believe the interest will be paid and the capital repaid. So, both your Committee and more importantly, the funders, will have to be convinced that the project is financially viable for it to go ahead.

I will turn now to some of the other reasons put forward for voting against building a new hall.

It was suggested that we continue to repair the exiting building; as one resident put it in a leaflet circulated to other households, “We repair our houses, why not the hall?” The crucial difference between our houses and the hall is that the houses are brick and tiles and the hall is wood and felt. The hall is more akin to a big garden shed and we all know that sheds, unlike houses, do not last forever. Several residents questioned the lack of a survey and expert report on the building and the cost of future repairs. This is a legitimate question. Because professional surveys are expensive and we did not find anyone volunteering to do it for free, we have so far saved the £600-£880 fees that we would be charged and have instead relied on the building expertise within, and available outside of, the Committee. It is possible, however, that HDCA can obtain a grant for the preliminary tasks that are needed to get to the planning consent stage (see para "What happens now"below) in which case a survey to prove need, may be paid for. In the unlikely event that such a survey concludes that the existing building can be economically viable for another 10 -20 years, I for one can find better things to do and would gladly abandon the project. The same thing applies to the need for a rigorous examination of the business plan for repaying any loan we might need.

There was some support for a shop within the building, while others pointed out that there was a shop in Higher Denham in the past that did not survive. Any shop in a new building would be a “community shop” run on the same basis that the Social Club bar is, ie run profitably, using volunteers on a rota. It would probably only be open for a limited time, morning and evening, and with a limited range of products, and although it should make a profit, it is seen equally as a convenience for residents. There was also support for a gym, and coincidentally the Committee was approached by someone last week who would be willing to lease space for a gym. Both these and other concepts will be further researched, but I can say there are definitely no plans for any activities that would not benefit local people such as hiring the hall for wedding parties.

A reoccurring theme from those voting against a new hall was that the community hall was for Higher Denham residents and we should not be encouraging people from outside Higher Denham to come in to use the hall (or field). However, our charity status relies on the Association providing benefit to people in the area, not just Higher Denham, and anyway, all of the regular events in the hall now, from senior lunches to line dancing, to zumba, the youth club and yoga etc, etc, attract people from outside Higher Denham and without them, few of these activities would be financially viable. In other words, in order to have a range of activities available for local people to attend we have to accept participation from paying outsiders. Likewise the Social Club would not be financially viable if membership was restricted to Higher Denham residents. Nothing will fundamentally change with a new hall, but more activities for residents to enjoy will inevitably mean more outsiders coming in.

What happens now? For me the first thing to do is apply for a grant from the government’s Homes and Communities Agency’s “Community Led Project Support Fund”. This £15 million fund provides money for all aspects of the formative stages of community led building projects, (including building village halls), up to and including applying for planning consent, i.e. surveys, funding advice, viability studies, architects plans and cost estimates and planning fees etc. If obtained, it covers 90% of costs. The fund has two essential requirements for eligibility. Firstly, proof of community involvement (the survey helps here) and community leadership rather than commercial leadership, which is certainly the case here. Secondly, that the entity applying for the grant is, or will become a limited company. Funds are provided in the grant for the expense of becoming a limited company. The need to be an incorporated entity is also a requirement of many grant funders and loan providers, so that is what HDCA will do.

HDCA will remain a registered charity. Many registered charities are companies limited by guarantee and this is the form of incorporation that is appropriate for HDCA. Several of those who voted “No” did so in part because of a fear that residents, or the Committee, would be liable for the debts of the Association if the income to repay any loan failed in the future. As things currently stand, if HDCA incurs debts it cannot pay, the Committee would be personally liable for the full debt. However, this is exactly what becoming a company limited by guarantee is designed to prevent. The company becomes the legal entity and the limit of any claim on its members is the limit they agree to pay (guarantee) if such a claim should ever happen. The normally accepted limit is £1 per member so the risk is absolutely minimal! HDCA’s constitution would have to be re-written as the Articles of the Company, including the £1 per member guarantee, but otherwise things would go on just as now. An AGM or EGM will probably be needed to agree this change.

Alongside this, a sub-committee is to be formed to firm up on all the details and to drive the process forward. This committee will consist of 4 members of the main Committee, plus the Social Club will be invited to send 1 or 2 members, and we would like 1 or 2 members from the wider community, preferably (but not essentially) with relevant skills in some aspect of the process. Contact David Ward if you, or someone you know, is interested. Having voted “No” does not necessarily preclude you from joining the sub-committee provided you have an open mind.

Finally, I would like on behalf of the whole Committee to thank everybody that responded, for or against; your views will be taken into account especially if you live near the hall. We know that we cannot please everyone all of the time, but we will try to minimise any negative impacts on near neighbours. We will, of course, keep everyone informed and involved as the project moves forward. If you would like to be actively e-mailed with updates as they occur, rather than waiting for the next newsletter, than please sign up on the website.

Ron James, Treasurer

Survey Results

A survey was conducted via the newsletter, and via this website, and the results were audited independently to ensure that it was done in an open and fair manner.
A big thank you to all of you that took part: a total of 110 responses were received with two-thirds voting to go ahead.

The votes collected were:
Yes No
Lower Road 23 26
Middle Road 21 2
Upper Road 17 2
Side Road 5 1
Other 7 2
Totals 73 33 plus 4 spoiled votes taking the total to 110.
or 66% 30% and 3% spoiled votes