| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 16:43:04
|
The Community Centre sited at Brambly Green was partly funded by money taken from the Brambly Green Maintenance fund (S106). This money is handed to the local authorities for the maintenance of a developement for the duration of the fund, about 16 years or until the fund is exhausted for the purpose it was intended. When the original purchasers of the houses on the Green bought their homes the developers took so much from the cost and put it into this fund(S106). It did not come from the tooth fairy. £500,000:00 was taken for the Community Centre and has to be paid back into this S106 fund but how. The balance for the build came from funds already held by the council which also came from the precept/council tax paid by all of Angmerings households.
The community centre is to be given a 25 year peppercorn rent which in real monetory terms is zero. A rent could and should be charged so the S106 fund can be replaced but the council have decided all the households in Angmering will pay for this by raising the precept through your council tax. Remember Brambly green residents have already paid for this and without disrespecting the residents of The Green the council wants the remainder of Angmering to pay into the fund for the maintenance of a developement they did not want in the first place.
Lets all fight this and get it stopped. Why should we have to pay twice! |
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 17:08:13
|
I agree georgevee the CC is operating as a venue for commercial business.Most of the classes are for self employed people to ply their trades & many charge commercial (& somewhat expensive)session charges which begs the question as to what is charitable about it.
The promised CAB outreach clinic is still absent & some events have already caused traffic congestion despite earlier assurances. |
 |
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 16:29:08
|
Georgevee..."Why should we have to pay twice!"
Actually you/we are paying three times!
Do not forget that Angmering Parish Council are also using our Council Tax from the Angmering precept to fund the running costs of the Community Centre to the tune of £64,000 in its first year.
They are also giving substantial but reducing amounts of our money for subsequent years.
I was very much against the Community Centre, particularly in respect of issues concerning Planning, Consultation and cost.
However we've got it now and it must be made to work, but it is at very substantial and disproportionate cost. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 17:06:02
|
We, the Council Tax (precept) payers are giving the Community Centre Association (ACCA) nearly £100,000 over a three year period with virtually no strings attached. They generously do not charge their landlords, the Parish Council (our representatives) for their 6-weekly full meetings but want to charge the PC £7 per hour for use of meeting rooms for other committee meetings which seems a bit of a cheek. We are paying twice here too!
The PC want to send a representative to the ACCA's committee meetings but I understand the ACCA do not want this unless the rep becomes a trustee. Having given the ACCA all that money, is it not right that the PC has some say or idea how it is spent? The rep need not be a trustee as long as it is understood that he/she cannot vote on any matter.
The PC has representation on other village bodies where they have contributed substantial funds, viz. the Village Hall and ASRA. So, what's the difference with the CC?
It is seven months since the ACCA took over the Community Centre but I understand no lease has yet been signed! The lease also has very advantageeous terms for the ACCA. Who is in control of all of this - the PC or the ACCA?
|
|
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 18:28:03
|
actually Bert we have already paid the first of the £94,000:00 as this has already been taken from your precept. It is recond the first year will be £64,000:00 which included buying all the kit, second year will be up to £20:000:00 and the third year will be a final £10,000:00. At present without signing a lease the ACCA are in there illegally and haven't paid any rent. Shouls there be an accident it is on the landlords of the centre's insurance not the community centres liability.
We cannot blame the new members of this parish council for this as it was apparently set in stone some time ago and they are as discusted as me.
At the full parish council on May 11 be there and voice your opinion and get this debarcle stopped. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2010 : 10:40:29
|
georgevee. I appreciate you are new to posting on this forum, (and you are very welcome,) I do not know if you are new to the village, but this Community Centre saga has been very well documented over the last five years on these forums under different headings. ie the planning procedure through to build and subsequent isues to which you currently refer.
So far as the current issues are concerned, in respect of "we cannot blame the new members." APC has continuously changed personel over the last five years, including the last year when the relationship of APC and ACCA in respect of cash for running costs, lease, rent etc. and I can assure you the Sec 106 money was discussed at great length before that. So I do not know where you create the cut off point for "new members."
I am well aware of the make up of the APC over the last 5+ years and who is responsible for what.
You imply that some recently appointed members are not happy with decisions made. That is good, it is time questions were asked. You use the phrase decisions were "set in stone" some time ago. Desisions are made, but not everything is "set in stone. " I could tell you many things that were very questionable in respect of the planning procedure for the CC, but there is no point in going over that now.
I wish you luck in respect of the current issues. |
|
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2010 : 11:27:02
|
Bert, yes I'm new to this forum and have lived in the village for 27 years.
As for this CC financing, look back through all past minutes or visit the Parish office as i did to find out for myself. It is all documented and there for your perusal. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2010 : 11:48:11
|
Georgevee. Yes, I am very well aware of that, I followed the saga from 2005, very closely, in respect of APC and these forums, and ascertained what had taken place from the mid 90's, in respect of the original planning procedure.
Not everything is in the APC minutes, but as I say, Good luck. |
|
|
|
240felicia
Senior Member
172 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2010 : 22:02:33
|
slightly skewing the topic, and this is probably a question that will go unanswered, but what happens to the money acca take for venue hire for events and activities such as the wedding event last weekend?
after overheads, where are profits going if they have no rent to pay and nothing to pay back to angmering parish council?
how can that event and anything similar be construed as something for the local community, there is surely not sufficient betrothed population in angmering to warrant holding an entire wedding event, nor associated businesses, so this was surely aimed at mostly people from outside the local community, and i don't see how a commercial event aimed at a larger catchment area is in keeping with the fundamental premise that the acca is a charity running the community centre for the benefit of the community of angmering. |
hello nice to meet you ;o) |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 09:17:36
|
Perhaps ACCA could let us know exactly what proportion of Angmering residents are actually using the CC & how many are from other areas.
Also how well used is the Village Hall now? |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 09:35:27
|
240felicia.
It is a perfectly reasonable question.
My understanding is, that all income will go into ACCA.
Very substantial sums of money are being given to ACCA by the residents of Angmering via the Parish Council as indicated above, in the initial years, after a very expensive build cost.
No rent to pay.
They are generating income from all activities and events.
It is a win, win, win situation for ACCA.
So far as events such as wedding receptions, parties, are concerned. You are correct. This was to be for the benefit of Angmering, but when ACCA registered with the Charities Commission, they gave their area of operation as WEST SUSSEX. (Check out the Charities Commission website.)
So you can see the scope of operation. You may well be paying for events for the people of Chichester to Crawley, at our village Community Centre.
As I have previously stated, we have the CC now and it must be made to work, it is far too expensive to fail, but it is at very substantial cost to the residents of Angmering.
The disproportionate cost was one of the reasons I was against the CC. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 09:45:46
|
Money from Wedding Fair is likely to go into hiring revenue with all the rest of hiring fees. I don't think ACCA has any sophisticated accounting systems.
Re holding the Wedding Fair at the CC, the ACCA's constitutional Objects are as follows. I leave it to others decide whether the Wedding Fair falls within these Objects.
quote:
(a) promote the benefit of the inhabitants of the area of benefit without distinction of sex, sexual orientation, nationality, age, disability, race or of political, religious or other opinions by associating together the said inhabitants and the statutory authorities, voluntary and other organisations in a common effort to advance education and to provide facilities of social welfare for recreation and leisure time with the object of improving conditions of life for the said inhabitants;
(b) establish, or secure the establishment of, a Community Centre and maintain and manage the same (whether alone or in co-operation with any statutory authority or other person or body) in furtherance of the above objects;
(c) promote such other charitable purposes as may from time to time be determined.
The Association shall be non-party in politics and non-sectarian in religion.
The area of benefit shall be the Parish of Angmering.
The foregoing information is in the public domain and can be seen at
http://www.guidestar.org.uk/gs_summary.aspx?CCReg=1125150&strquery=angmering
In the early days, the PC was going to run the CC itself but later found that doing so would attract higher rates, etc., so the idea of it being run by an independent charity was born. The question that needs to be asked is, if the CC was run by the PC, would they charge themselves rent? If, the answer is yes, then the ACCA should pay rent to the PC. Having said that, the rental figure originally proposed for the ACCA to pay was far too high for an organisation trying to get the CC off the ground on the PC's behalf. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 10:29:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bert
So far as events such as wedding receptions, parties, are concerned. You are correct. This was to be for the benefit of Angmering, but when ACCA registered with the Charities Commission, they gave their area of operation as WEST SUSSEX. (Check out the Charities Commission website.)
Actually, Bert, the ACCA's Constitution states that the Area of Benefit is The Parish of Angmering - that's ACCA's underlining - not mine!
I don't think the ACCA registered the area of operation as West Sussex - that's a Commission classification. The Commission, however, states that the Area of Benefit is "LOCAL", again perhaps their own wording. Notwithstanding that, the ruling document - the Constitution - is unambiguous. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 10:51:05
|
Fair enough Neil, I was merely reporting what is registered on the Charities Commission website for ACCA.
While we are on cost; Georgevee, in his initial posting on this subject, indicated that the sum of £500,000 was put into the CC by the Developers of Bramley Green.(sec 106)
My recollection is that the sum was £50,000 was contributed by the developers of Bramley Green for the cost of the build, and that the remaining £850,000 is to be paid by Angmering residents through Council Tax. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 11:03:17
|
I think that the £500,000 to which Georgevee refers was the devolution sum for the maintenance of Bramley Green (for up to 16 years) which the PC then borrowed from themselves for the building of the CC (rather than get an expensive Public Works Board loan) and which the PC needs to pay back to their BG maintenance fund. This will come from the annual parish precept for many years to come.
The developers gave £50,000 toward the building of a Community Centre. |
|
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 11:04:18
|
| Hi 240felicia, I only heard about the wedding sales thing at the community centre yesterday and I was also told a regular activity was turned away because of it without any warning. It really greives me that as residents we are having to pay for this place by giving all this cash to set up and run it for three years and a lease of 25 years at a pepercorn rent. Before any lease is signed, which the trustees have refused to do so, we as residents and council tax payers should insist any lease should have a reasonable rent payable back to the council. At present they are operating without a license or lease and basically are sqatting. WE need to let this council know this is unacceptable and must stop. Get down to the office or go to the full council meeting May 11th and tell them. This is the parishioners money, not theirs or the community centres. |
|
|
|
objectiveperspectives
New Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 13:54:56
|
| The Wedding Event held at ACC was not an ACCA event but rather organised and presented by local business women. It was never represented as an ACCA event. In order for the centre to remain financially viable (and more importantly for it to be financially self sufficient after the first three years of financial aid) they must surely be able to also operate as a hall for hire?? The ACCA would not be able to offer the local community outreach programs/activies etc without also holding events such as wedding fairs as this is where the funding will come from for LONG TERM FUTURE projects that are aimed at the local community. Is the suggestion that the centre should ONLY be used for events that can be construed as beneficial for the local community? That is of course ludicrous and what is more...what the ACCA HAS achieved thus far does not seem to have been acknowledged. What about the youth progam that is beginning in May offering free street dance workshops and apparently later on, access to computers and internet? What about the monthly lunch club for the elderly? These are just two of the things that I have noticed being presented as ACCA events that are surely beneficial for the local community! What about the use of the centre by many LOCAL groups? |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 19:46:30
|
Not sure whether I understand the first two sentences of the last posting. I did not think anyone had suggested that the Wedding Fair was an ACCA event. Probably 95% of bookings at the CC are not ACCA events.
The question is: - does a Wedding Fair, which the ACCA allowed and profited from, fall within the scope of its Constitutional Objects submitted to, and approved by, the Charity Commission? Perhaps it does. The Charity Commission can be very fussy in these matters as I know from experience.
Notwithstanding that, the ACCA has done very well to achieve the present level of bookings which has probably outstripped original projections.
I cannot believe that the ACCA did not give notice to a regular hirer (CKD?) that they could not use the Hall last Sunday. Normally their communication with hirers is very good. I'm a regular hirer of a non-profit making club and I've never experienced a problem with the ACCA on that score.
What residents should also be aware of that the PC will still be paying for certain insurances for the CC and for some of the maintenance, such as roof, gutters, drains, floors, doors, walls, window frames, underfloor heating, exterior decorations, car park, fences, water & gas pipes, electrical wiring, basins, sinks, toilets (except blockages), ground source heating, solar panels, etc. We, the Council Tax payers, will still be picking up the tab for the maintenance of all of these. |
|
|
|
240felicia
Senior Member
172 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 21:16:52
|
i appreciate that there are many community clubs, groups, activities and events being run there, and do not dispute that...
what i was saying was that personally i feel that a commercial event venue use of the premises in bramley green is completely innapropriate for the location.
the parking was a flipping nightmare, as many residents feared would be the case before the place was even approved for planning.
so yes, i do feel that having built the facility in a residential area, it should be solely for local community events and clubs, not commercial events, as the latter cause too much inconvenience to the residents of the area at no beneft to them.
i am entitled to my opinion, it is not wrong, shortsighted, lacking knowledge, it is how i feel, and i am sure i am not the only one who does not want disruptive commercial events being held in bramley green, or any other solely residential area of angmering for that matter
|
hello nice to meet you ;o) |
Edited by - 240felicia on 29 Apr 2010 21:20:43 |
|
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 22:05:32
|
Much as I appreciate the comments I think we could be getting away from the point regarding repaying the monies use by the APC for the build. This money was already paid by the residents of Angmering in their council tax and also by the residents of Brambly Green when they first purchased their homes. Now this Parish council want us as residents to pay again.
The community centre will I'm sure be a great success but as a commercial venture it should pay a rent which would over the years repay back the funds used to build the centre. It doesn't matter who runs the centre but a rent should be paid. Not us again. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 07:53:14
|
Georgevee, the Parish Council (or its chairman) is desperate for the CC to be seen as a success after all that has gone on with its building. When the PC did propose that the ACCA pay rent, there was an acrimonious meeting at which the trustees of the ACCA threatened to walk away from the running of the CC. At the very last minute, a very unhappy PC capitulated and agreed to a rent of one peppercorn.
Forum readers can look at the PC's website for the PC Meeting minutes of 13 July 2009 for more details of the agreement between the PC and the ACCA.
In December, so desperate was the PC that the lease be signed that the PC interfered (or at least one person interfered) in the internal affairs of the ACCA.
If the PC tried to impose the same proposed rent on the ACCA, I would not at all be surprised if the trustees gave the PC three months notice of termination of the lease (even if it has not yet been signed!). The PC cannot take that chance.
|
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 09:10:45
|
Neil
It would seem that the ACCA are yet another group containing individuals more interested in basking in self praise & wielding their little bit of power rather than actually meeting their professed aims.They drive forward ill conceived projects regardless of the cost to others & when they cannot get their own way threaten to "take their ball home."
Rather than be held to ransom in this way APC should call their bluff & if ACCA are prepared to abandon the CC then APC admin staff should now be capable of taking bookings & managing the centre particularly if the parish office were relocated to the CC, disposing of the current parish office which might save on running costs. |
|
|
|
georgevee
Junior Member
10 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2010 : 19:51:10
|
| Well said Bram, you must be on the same wave length as me. Hopefully you feel the same about paying for something twice as this is what the Parish council want us to do. At the next full council meeting go and demand the APC call the bluff of the ACCA. I really do want the centre to be a success and yes it is a commercial business so they have to pay the rent. as i have said in the past no lease has been signed so lets get the APC to call their bluff. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
