Back to Rebuilding the Village Hall page

Village Hall Working Group Members Present:  Bill Pinkerton (Chair), Peter Newell, Martin Shann, Mary Ann Canning

Apologies:  Colin Smith

Approx 120 Freeland village residents were present

The notes of the meeting were taken by the Parish Clerk, Lisa Smith

INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR URGENT ACTION

Bill Pinkerton gave a presentation on the history of how the current situation with the Village Hall had arisen.  He explained that earlier this year, an issue had arisen that the Village Hall roof was leaking, and as the Village Hall Committee received no funding, it had insufficient funds to have this work carried out.  So an approach had been made to the Parish Council who agreed in principle to cover this work, but wanted a more thorough investigation into the rest of the village hall structure to see if any further work would be required.

A proper structural survey was carried out on the building, and the results raised concerns regarding various problems including possible asbestos in the soffits and floor, and the main wall supporting the roof which was a wooden frame and was slowly sinking.  An asbestos survey was then carried out and no asbestos was found in the soffits, however it was present underneath the floor tiles.

Three potential schemes were worked on following the structural survey which were presented at the Annual Parish Meeting.  These were:

Scheme 1 – A basic refurbishment of the hall which would include a new roof, new windows, new wooden floor, new guttering and fascias.

Scheme 2 – An intermediate refurbishment of the hall that would include everything in scheme 1, plus a new brick facade at the front.

Scheme 3 – A partial rebuild of the hall that would include everything in scheme 1, plus a new pitched roof across the top which would raise the ceiling considerably, new walls, a new meeting room etc, new worktops in the kitchen.

At the APM lots of discussion was held about why it was not possible to have a brand new village hall built instead of refurbishing the old hall, and many ideas were put forward.  So the Parish Council asked a local architect for his views as to what could be obtained within the money available, and this scheme was available on display.

A leaflet was designed and circulated round the village to gain their views as to what residents would like from the village hall.  A 20% response rate was received and these responses were presented on a chart to the residents.  Bill explained that these responses were also presented to the Parish Council on 6th July who made a decision that the best option would be Scheme 3, rather than a new village hall.  This had been voted for at the last Parish Council meeting.  Bill explained that they had come along to the meeting to make everyone aware of the decision and to obtain residents’ views and input.  He then handed over to Peter Newell to explain further the responses to the leaflet.

RESPONSES TO THE LEAFLET:  WHAT PEOPLE OF THE VILLAGE WANT FROM THEIR HALL

Peter Newell presented a chart of the leaflet responses.  Approximately 20% of households responded.  Although some people ticked all boxes on the form, it was clear from the chart that the main things that people wanted from their hall were:

An enlarged function hall, with an open aspect and doors onto the playing field and a veranda onto the playing field for watching sports.

There was mixed feelings regarding a small bar as it would be in competition with the Oxfordshire Yeoman pub, and the general feeling from the residents was to not have a bar in the village hall.

With regard to events in the hall, the responses received from the leaflet indicated preferences for the following:

New classes e.g. exercise, yoga, dance etc, new clubs e.g. WI, film club, youth club, wedding receptions and parties and evening classes.

Unfortunately at the current time the hall was not up to standard for wedding receptions, but this could change once the improvement work had been carried out.

Other written responses on the returns included:

Improved storage, better looking building, BBQ area, car park lighting, badminton, facilities for elderly and disabled, clinics, farmers markets, better hall ventilation, shop/Post Office, larger parking area, better blackouts for slide or video presentations, stage dressing room for concerts, extra meeting room, better access to hall after heavy rain, well equipped kitchen, internet connection and  computer facilities.

Comments were then invited from the residents regarding the leaflet responses, but no comments were made.

FINANCE – A PROPOSAL TO TAKE OUT A LOAN OF £300,000

Peter Newell went on to explain about the financial background.  The Village Hall Working Group and the Parish Council all had come up with some ideas about what could be done with the Village Hall, all of which costed money.  Peter had spent considerable time investigating what funding could be tapped into to assist with the costs.  Unfortunately, it was a bad time financially to obtain funding -  the Lottery funding was no longer available due to the forthcoming Olympics, funding from WODC could be obtained once a year, but there was a requirement that 25% of the total cost be obtained from other funding sources (not including any loan obtained) .  Bearing in mind the costs of the proposed work, this was felt to be almost impossible in the short time available for obtaining the loan.

Peter explained that they had been successful in obtaining some small amounts of funding - £7,000 had been granted from WODC, and £5,000 had been granted from the Chill Out Fund at Oxfordshire County Council.  However, these were relatively small amounts compared with the total costs involved.

However it was a favourable time to borrow money as the current interest rates were very low (approx 4% fixed for 25 years).  It was inevitable that these rates would go up soon so it was essential to move swiftly to secure the exceptionally low rates.

Peter explained that the Parish Council can borrow up to £300,000, but permission had to be obtained and national rules from NALC had to be followed .  Part of these rules is that a fully costed plan and full planning permission has to be in place before permission will be granted.  Currently a fully costed plan is in place but planning permission is required.  If that is approved then an application could be made to the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) that provides loans to Parish Councils at favourable rates.

Comments and queries were raised from residents and responses were given as follows:

Why only £300,000 being applied for?

The maximum loan any parish council can apply for is £500,000.  However, Freeland is a relatively small parish and Peter had been advised by OALC that £500,000 would not be granted to such a small parish.  Also, some parish councils in the past had over stretched themselves and got into difficulties repaying their loans so the OALC would not approve permission for a large amount to a small parish unless it was sure it could be repaid without any problems.  Even with a £300,000 loan with a fixed rate of 4.1% for 25 years, this still equated to a cost of £35 per household per year for the next 25 years.

Although it sounded a lot over a year, £35 per household per year only equated to 67 pence per week, which was very affordable.

Peter recognised the fact that it was a hard time to be asking residents for money, but also pointed out that it was getting urgent.  The felt on the village hall roof was likely to rip in the near future, and if that happened the hall would not be usable.  If the bookings reduced, then there would be no funds available to maintain the hall.  Even when the Olympics were over it was unlikely there would be sufficient funding available, so we have to act now as it was a very favourable time to get a loan.

If a larger loan than £300,000 were agreed, you may not need it all.  The WODC grant could be used but still apply for the extra £100,000, and you don’t have to keep it if it’s not required.

Peter responded that it was very unlikely that the OALC would allow any more than a £300,000 loan.

Has the Parish Council quantified the costs of doing nothing?  E.g. just the repair work.

Re-felting the roof would cost approx £10,000, assuming the wood work was in good condition.  However, the worst case scenario would be for asbestos to be present.  However, from the survey conducted, there was no asbestos in the soffits, but it was present in the floor underneath the tiles.   The Clive Brimson scheme that was costed approx 6 years ago for a new hall would have cost back then £625,000 plus fees – it would be around £700,000+ now.

Of the £300,000, what proportion would be raised by fund raising?

In Phase 1: none, as fund raising is a very slow process and action needs to be taken urgently to obtain the loan and to ensure the roof is repaired.  Phase 2 of the project would include fund raising.

The £35 to be repaid by every household – this pre-supposes that there would be no income from the hall or insufficient income for the maintenance.  However, if a new hall was built, the income would more than likely increase from more bookings – also has any thought been given to gaining financial resources from other areas?

Yes – an application was made to TOE (which can provide up to £25,000) for refurbishment,  which was then withdrawn when refurbishment was no longer an option, but this can be looked at again with a different scheme.  Another avenue was to apply to WREN which can provide up to £50,000.  However, obtaining the money from both of these schemes is not a rapid process.

Can funding not be obtained via the sports groups e.g. girls football teams to get new changing facilities as part of phase 1?

Phase 1 would not give new changing facilities to the sports teams, this would not be done until phase 2.

Is the £35 per household per year fixed, or would this vary on the particular council tax banding of the house?

This would vary depending on the banding.

POSSIBLE SCHEMES FOR USING THE £300,000:  THE “MARTIN HALL” SCHEME AND THE “RAY TOLLADY” SCHEME.

Printed details of the two schemes were made available at the meeting via handouts (click on the Schemes shown in red to view the handouts).  Peter talked through the two schemes, starting with the Martin Hall scheme.

The “Martin Hall” Scheme

This scheme would give a size of 297 m² for £300,000 and would entail the following:

•Replacement of the existing roof structure with a pitched roof bearing roofing tiles.  The new tiled roof would be considerably higher than the existing one and would span not only the existing main hall but also the kitchen, store room and shower rooms, thereby doing away with all of the existing flat roofs.  The ceiling in the hall would be raised and all of the existing lighting fittings would be removed and replaced by more modern lighting.

•Replacing the existing North and West wooden walls with new cavity brick (or reconstituted Cotswold stone).

•Addition of a new wall at the rear (East side) between the extremities of the existing brick walls of the kitchen and store room so as to form a new enclosed meeting room or additional hall space.

•Construction of a new gable over the entrance hallway to form a better entrance to the hall.

•Replacement of all windows with double-glazed UPVC units and doors with aluminium units.

•Construction of a new modern-styled kitchen.

•Replacement of the electric wall heaters in the main hall, kitchen and toilets.

•Laying a new warmer engineered wooden floor in the main Hall.

The existing layout of the hall could either be retained, with the addition of a new meeting room, or re-arranged with the kitchen in the position of the current store room, giving an enlarged main hall and a larger store room (see handout).  This would give a better view of the playing field but would alter the shape of the hall.

Pros:

1.It provides a largely rebuilt hall within the budget limit of £300,000.

2.It increases the size of the hall. (external measurements in square metres (m²)):  Current total area of the village hall is 270m², area of proposed new space is 27m², so total area with new space is 297m².  The increase in size can either be used for a larger hall and store room or as a new meeting room using the current layout.

3.It maintains the views over the playing field from the hall.

4.The scheme has been professionally costed at £300,000.

5.Car parking is largely unaffected and does not incur additional costs.

Cons:

1.The current changing room/showers/toilets remain (but could be upgraded in a subsequent phase 2 extension).

2.The Hall is not available during the rebuilding operation.

The “Ray Tollady” Scheme

This scheme would provide a size of 200m² for £300,000 and would entail the following:

•Construction of a new build 200m² hall in the car park to the left of the entrance with the rear of the hall facing North towards the hedge.  Construction would be metal frame with infill of brick or other material and would have a pitched roof bearing roofing tiles.

•Provision for one male and one female toilet (one of these doubling up as a disabled toilet).

•Demolition of the Northern part of the existing hall, leaving the Southern section with its existing felt roof structure containing the changing room/showers/toilets.

•Later, when further funds are available, there could be construction of a new changing/showers block such as an 80m² sports pavilion on the playing field and demolition of the Southern section of the existing hall.

Pros:

1.The hall is completely new.

2.The current hall remains available during the construction period.

Cons:

1.At 200m² it is smaller than the current hall.  Even allowing for the fact that it would not contain the changing room/showers facilities which are 33m² in area, it is still smaller than the Martin Hall scheme by 64m².

2.The space limitation necessitates only one female and one male toilet with no separate disabled facility which is inadequate for use by 100 or more people.

3.It uses a large part of the car park until such time as the pavilion is built.  This is a problem of particular importance as the car park is jointly used by the owners of the Oxfordshire Yeoman pub who pay £750pa for their lease.

4.The hall would not look out over the playing field.

5. 5.The remaining rump of the current village hall would be unsightly and would retain part of the existing felt-covered sloping and flat roof.
   

Comments and Questions from Residents with responses:

How long would the hall be out of use if the Martin Hall scheme was undertaken?

2-3 months approx.

Is the rump going to be re-roofed?

No, it would be left as it is currently as there would be no money to re-roof it.

Has anyone canvassed the village to see how much the village is prepared to pay?

That is the reason for the village meeting.  If we asked the village how much they are prepared to pay, from previous experience the answer is likely to be nothing or no response, as people would say, of course, that it would depend on what they would get for their money.

In Scheme 1, what facilities would there be for 9 football teams and cricket teams?

It would depend on the timing but all costs would have to come out of the £300,000.

Will you be reclaiming the VAT on the materials used as this could equate to approx £20,000?

Yes, the Parish Council already reclaim VAT on items as a matter of course.

A refurbishment is still not a new building – how long do you think it will last as the village hall is already a 40 year old building?

Peter pointed out that the Martin Hall scheme was not a refurbishment but mainly a rebuild and so could hopefully last for many years to come.

Break for tea – 9.00pm.

9.15pm – Short presentation by Freeland resident, Robert Crocker

Robert Crocker gave a short presentation to residents regarding the whole project.  He advised residents that for £300,000, a new hall could be built based on a price per square metre.  He said that the whole hall could be knocked down apart from the showers, and a brand new building could be built.  He suggested that Martin Hall’s scheme was a big improvement on what was there already but that the village would be selling the next generation short if they did not go for a really good new hall.  It had been suggested that a new separate sports pavilion could be built, but this he felt would have to be a part of the scheme, as the whole thing has to be one village hall project.  He felt that doing a complete rebuild would attract more funding, even though the 25% still had to be in place by November – he pointed out that he felt this was indeed possible.

He explained that if the Parish Council borrowed £350,000, it could be put on the precept and some of the car park could be removed and a separate sports pavilion built.  He pointed out that there were various individuals in Freeland who were keen to fund raise, and Robert pledged to give funds himself towards the landscaping.  He asked if there were any other residents who would be willing to give some money towards the project - at least 2 or 3 other residents said they would although no amounts were discussed.

He finished his presentation by saying that he wanted the hall to last at least 30 – 50 years.  He pointed out that currently the interest rates are at a historically low rate and a completely new hall can be provided within the money required rather than a rebuild.

He thanked the residents for their time and Bill Pinkerton for allowing him to present to the village and there was a round of applause in support of his presentation.

OPEN DISCUSSION OF THE BEST WAY FORWARD

An open discussion was held where residents were able to pose questions to the working group and responses were given where possible.  Responses were not always able to be provided as questions were often posed back to back without a pause for a response. 

One of the fundamental problems with the village hall building is the setting.  Anyone driving past only sees the car park from the road and then the building blocks the view of the field.  The Ray Tollady scheme means the hall can be seen from the road but also people could see the playing field as well as they drove past which would be a much more pleasant view and might encourage more users.

With the toilets, have you had a chartered surveyor look at all of the possibilities – under the Ray Tollady scheme with the toilets at the rear, the eves height is 2.5 metres, you can easily extend this by another 500mm and you can have this for free.

There are two trees near the village hall - are you going to work around them or is there any excavation issue?

We would want to retain them but need to check out any problems with a professional.

The members of the cricket and football club feel very neglected with all the plans.  We have lots of members and are very willing to help fund raise so use us.  Both schemes have a phase 2 and it takes time to fund raise but we can have a pavilion.

I have spoken to professional fund raisers and if you raise an initial amount it would be much more favourable to attract people to help with the rest.

Why has no fund raising been done before if you have been talking about it previously?

We have done it before but the Parish Council are not allowed to fund raise themselves. It has to be done via other groups.

If a new hall is built it must be the same size as we have now, not smaller.

Is the Village Hall Committee a registered charity?  If so, can they not go for fund raising?

Yes the Village Hall is a registered charity and fund raising has been done before but it has not raised the funds anticipated and it takes a long time.

We need to eradicate the problem of the lake in the car park when it floods in wet weather.  In which phase do we get rid of this?

Unfortunately the problem of the lake in the car park is not easily solved.  The soakaways have been looked at and been renewed but the problem still remains.  This has not been included in any of the plans and unless the car park is dug up and serious work undertaken this problem is not eradicated altogether.  However, the entrance way will be raised higher than currently and in a different position under the Martin Hall scheme so this problem should be eased when accessing the hall.

You have said that £300,000 is the maximum you can get.  Have you looked into the exact amount you can have, for example you might actually be able to get £350,000?

Conversations have been held with Lynne Newin and Jan Gossett from the OALC who have both suggested not going for any more than £300,000.  They both felt this was a reasonable amount to go for given the size of the parish.

If the refurbishment scheme was to go ahead, what would happen if you found something  dodgy – eg there is a horrible smell currently from the storage cupboard.  Have you got a contingency plan if the walls are taken down and a bigger problem is discovered?

The smell was found to be an old mop which has been removed and disposed of.  No contingency plan is in place if anything else is found, but the structural survey has already been carried out so we are not expecting any surprises.

The costings of the two schemes have not been carried out on an equivalent basis – one is a cost per square metre and the other is on an elemental basis by a professional.  I would suggest you have the Ray Tollady scheme costed on the same basis as currently they are not costed equally.

Have you asked for the cost of the North Leigh and Eynsham costs per square metre as both of these halls were built fairly recently?

We are aware that the costs of these halls were challenged originally and there were issues, but we do not know the exact costs per square metre. 

Why are you so anti a new village hall?

Bill Pinkerton responded: I am not anti a new village hall, but I went to the Freeland Parish Council meeting and asked the members what they wanted me to bring to this meeting as a recommendation – I myself did not vote.  We held a democratic vote and the outcome was to recommend the Martin Hall scheme.

The majority of the village want a new village hall, but most of the parish council are against it.  Surely you must hold a vote on what the residents would like and support – do you propose a vote?

The only thing to vote on is whether to borrow the money before it is too late and the interest rates go up?

But before we borrow the money we have to have a scheme in place.

Do people wish us to borrow the money?

Yes.

I am concerned only 20% of the village bothered to return the leaflet and put ideas forward.  What about the other 80% of the village?  Are you going to be asking them?

To get the loan, OALC have to be satisfied that the village has been consulted.  We have to get something that the village are aware of and to do this we leafleted every household in the Village but we don’t have to have to hold a referendum.

You said Freeland Parish Council can’t fund raise but they have done it before.

Freeland Parish Council cannot fund raise themselves, but individuals have done it previously.  The Parish Council can apply for grants but sports clubs and groups have got a better chance of getting grants.

The Cricket Club and 140 members of the Football Club will all fund raise for all of the funds for phase 2.

For the pavilion in the Ray Tollady scheme – can the Village Hall Committee not fund raise?

We can’t do that until we know what phase 1 will be, but the pavilion can be part of both schemes.

Under the Ray Tollady scheme, I can’t see any planning for phase 2.  How can you enter a project with no knowledge of the second phase as it won’t then happen?

If money can be obtained via the sports clubs, can you do the sports facilities first and then do the hall as a second phase?

We would actively encourage all clubs to fund raise as much as possible.

Is the Village Hall under the Ray Tollady scheme in the right position?

Could the phase 2 not be done as a separate building otherwise it looks like an extension?

The Village Hall could be a really nice centre to the village – if we have the refurbishment there would be no room for a pavilion.

Are you allowed to tell us how the votes went at the Parish Meeting?

There were 3 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

We could have a vote this evening and take a show of hands, or we could have a ballot.

It’s really important to have an adequate village centre, and the fairest way is to have a ballot.

There is some history to this which some of you may be aware of.  A number of years ago a new village hall was looked at and the cost back then was £200,000.  An anonymous resident agreed to give £100,000 and we were almost certain to receive £50,000 for the WODC and County Councils.  We held a referendum to see if the village would be willing to provide the remaining £50,000.  The majority said that they wanted a new village hall but did not want to provide the necessary money.  So the resident withdrew their offer of £100,000 and the new hall was never built.  If you ask the village again, a lot of people will say the same, that they want a new hall but don’t want to spend the money.

How will you make the decision to spend the money?

That is difficult to decide.  We sent round a leaflet and have had the responses.  It’s difficult in the timescales we have available as something needs to be done asap.

But you didn’t ask in the leaflet if we wanted a new hall or a refurbished hall?

There is no way to fund a new hall at a cost of £600,000+ - if we can’t fund it then we would not include it as an option.

In light of the £300,000 that we could get – how would everyone like to progress – new build or refurbishment?

If we want to fully rebuild then the £35 per household per year available is not enough: if you go for a new building you would only get a smaller hall than the current size.

What about if you went for other funding – could then get a bigger hall?

This could take years to achieve and we won’t get a cheap rate loan unless we go for it now.

When do you hope to start the work?

We hope to start the rebuild next spring, if everyone is happy.  We need money from the sports clubs to refurbish the changing rooms.  As the hall is used by the sports clubs, then there is an argument to try and get a grant for the hall if this option is available.  We must work together with the sports clubs to bring money in, and they have an opportunity to obtain grants, but it does take time.

We are almost reaching a stale mate – the working group need a steer from the village – please take a vote so that a steer can be given.

The biggest argument against the new hall is the smaller floor space and inferior facilities that the available funding would provide.

But you have gained 40 square metres, you need an extra 30 square metres. If the sports clubs go for grants then you can gain a bigger west wing and the problem is solved.

If you built a new hall, what would be the actual usable hall size as the Tollady drawing does not show this.  Is there a difference in the area of the hall or would it be the same size?

Robert Crocker stated it would be the same size.

The Gardening club expressed concern about the hall being made smaller as it was difficult to manage currently with the number of members that came to meetings.  The Orchestra also did not want an “L” shaped hall , nor did the ladies exercise groups.

The working group agreed to take the comments away and review everything they had heard. 

In summing up, Bill Pinkerton advised that from the plans that had been presented so far, if a new hall was built then it would be smaller.  If it was possible for a new hall to be built for the same price as the rebuild, then the argument would be solved and everyone would go for a new hall.  But the evidence they had seen so far did not give the same size hall, and they had to get at least the same size hall with the facilities required.  He thanked everyone for their input.

A vote was taken as to whether residents would prefer a new village hall or a partial rebuild.  All of those present voted in favour of a new hall with no votes in favour of a partial rebuild.

The meeting closed at 10.10pm.

Back to Rebuilding the Village Hall page