Henry Warren Village Club, Nyewood, West Sussex Registered Charity Number 230852

Options Appraisal February 2019

Prepared for the trustees by Louise Beaton, Consultant Community Buildings Adviser, Action in rural Sussex

1

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

Contents

Background ...... 3

2 Introduction - The Options Appraisal ...... 5

3 Projected use ...... 7

4 Location – ease of access ...... 11

5 Effect on neighbours ...... 13

6 Facilities provided by each site ...... 16

7 Size of sites (including scope for future expansion or alteration) ...... 21

8 Parking ...... 22

9 Business Plan ...... 25

10 Capital cost and potential funding: ...... 26

10.1 Costs ...... 26

10.2 Potential Funding ...... 27

11 Revenue financing ...... 30

12 Governance ...... 31

13 Summary and conclusions ...... 33

14 Appendix A - References ...... 36

15 Appendix B – Potential Funding Sources ...... 37

16 Appendix C – Assessment Criteria and Scoring ...... 39

2

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

Background

1.1.1 The Henry Warren Village Club was built in 1910. Its activities were led by Commander Henry Warren until his death in 1919. His widow purchased the lease of the building and garden and bequeathed it in his memory on trust for the Club in 1936. Since then the Club has served as its village hall and the hub of this small rural community, particularly since the closure of the village shop and pubs. (See also 12.1.1).

1.1.2 In 2011 the Trustees and Operating Committee began working on plans to modernise the Club. In 2013 they succeeded in acquiring the freehold. However, it became clear that the building was not structurally sound. Repair was feasible but costly and the hall closed for health and safety reasons.

1.1.3 The Trustees and Operating Committee therefore decided in 2013 that “rather than seek to upgrade a structurally unsound 100-year-old building of unsatisfactory design, which was already considered to be too small, a new modern hall should be built”1. A survey of Nyewood conducted in 2014 showed strong support (from 89% of households) for a new village hall.

1.1.4 Planning consent was granted for a new hall on the old site, but with restrictive parking and noise conditions (Ref: SDNP/14/02603/FUL). Given the combination of these restrictions and funding challenges, a search for a potential alternative village hall site was undertaken by the trustees, who concluded that there were only two viable sites for a new village hall in Nyewood: The existing site of the village hall and a site at the Northern end of the village, referred to as the New Site, on which two options to purchase expire in May 2019

1.1.5 Four years on (2018) a new survey of 105 Nyewood households was commissioned to establish whether support for a new hall continues and to establish which of the two alternative sites for a new hall was most favoured by the local community. 95% of respondents agreed a new hall would benefit the village as a whole. However, while the results showed a preference for a “New Hall on the New site”, this was not unanimous: 34% favoured a New Hall on the Old site and 57% a New Hall on the New site “For the benefit of the village as a whole”, with 7% expressing no real preference. 33% favoured the old site and 45% the new site “for the benefit of their own household”. The survey report acknowledged (page 8) that “the subject raises strong feelings within the community”.2

1 The Future of the Village Hall – Community Briefing to accompany survey, April 2018 2 The Future of Nyewood Village Hall – Community Survey 2018 report ay 2018 3

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

1.1.6 At the Hall AGM on 12th May 2018 concerns were raised about the survey and its results. A group called “The Heart of Nyewood Committee” (HoNC) presented in August 2018 a document called “Restoring the Heart of Nyewood”3 which contains the case for a new hall being built on the current site in the centre of the village or refurbishing the old hall. Two “open days” were held by HoNC and a petition then raised 68 signatures from 101 households (excluding the trustees and owners of the site of the new hall) in favour of the old site. HoNC have explained it was only when a number of people raised objections and new ideas were thrown up at the AGM in 2018 that they realised that their own views were shared by more of the community than they thought, hence they only belatedly brought forward alternative plans.

1.1.7 The trustees agreed to review any sensible proposal and as a result of this divergence of opinion the trustees invited HoNC to present their plans. In September 2018 the trustees asked AirS for assistance through the provision of an independent Options Appraisal. AirS were unable to provide this until January 2019, which meant a planning application for the new site and associated houses had already been submitted to the South Downs National Park before it could be undertaken (Ref: SDNP/18/05385/FUL).

1.1.8 AirS commissioned an independent Community Buildings Consultant who has over 30 years’ experience working with community buildings nationally and in Sussex for this purpose.

3 Restoring the Heart of Nyewood, August 2018, The Heart of Nyewood Committee 4

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

2 Introduction - The Options Appraisal

2.1.1 The following 3 objectives for the Options Appraisal were agreed with the trustees, Objective 2 being specifically designed to refer to either site, not just the current application:

Objectives:

1. To obtain independent, objective external advice as to the two project options from someone suitably qualified and experienced, and to be able to demonstrate to the community that this has been done 2. To provide evidence which may prove useful in the planning application process and/or applications for funding 3. To appraise potential funding and provide further information as appropriate.

2.1.2 It was also agreed that a brief outline of Governance be included, to aid understanding and because a capital project is an opportunity for any charity trustees to consider whether current Governance arrangements are appropriate.

2.1.3 The Appraisal has comprised desk research, site visits and meetings with the Trustees, Operating Committee and (the consultant’s request) HoNC. The meetings covered the same questions and provided an opportunity to discuss all 9 criteria agreed for the Options Appraisal. During the course of these meetings information was also provided, the aim being to assist understanding.

2.1.4 The 9 criteria form the basis for the main body of this report. Having produced the report, an approach to analysis, scoring and weighting was applied to produce the table in Appendix C. The one chosen for this purpose is recommended by the Government for public facilities such as libraries, (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/libraries-alternative-delivery- models-toolkit/stage-5-options-appraisal )

2.1.5 While that recommended approach would require less important criteria to be weeded out that has not been done in this case, in order that a comprehensive picture is publicly available, so all 9 criteria are shown, with the most important having a weighting of 10.

2.1.6 There are five options, of which the latter four have been considered:

1. Demolish old hall, sell site, no rebuilding: As this does not meet the community’s needs it has not been considered further.

5

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

2. Refurbish the old hall: The summary at the end of Section 3 explains why the option of keeping the same size main hall and site arrangement is not considered further, only refurbishment with added facilities.

3. New hall on the old site – design already approved by CDC/SDNPA.

4. New hall on the old site – timber framed design presented or another. (Note that the merits of a sustainable form of construction are understood but this has been brought forward in 2018 and is only at concept stage. It has only been possible to address the project as presented at this point in time).

5. New hall on the new site.

2.1.7 It should be noted that this Appraisal covers options available to the trust at the present time. It is not, and could not be in the time allocated, a comprehensive review of the history of the project, a reflection on options at a previous point in time, or an assessment of the sustainability or otherwise of construction methods of each option or a review of all planning objections or letters of support (which are properly a matter for the South Downs National Park Authority as planning authority.) HoNC, trustee and statutory consultee documents only have been viewed, this was made clear at the outset.

2.1.8 There are divergent views as to which survey, by trustees or HoNC, better represents the views of the community. We were not asked to provide an assessment.

2.1.9 AirS is a charity whose mission is to support rural communities in Sussex to be vibrant and diverse places in which to live and work. AirS provides an independent advisory service for trustees and others running village halls and similar community buildings in Sussex and is part of the ACRE Network providing such services nationally. AirS can assist a village hall project with identifying and bidding for funding. In Chichester District that service is currently available via a consultancy contract. AirS was engaged by the trustees for a period in 2011/12 when funding for refurbishment was first explored, but not again until late 2018 for the purpose of this Appraisal. The Henry Warren Village Club has remained a subscriber to AirS Community Building Service.

6

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

3 Projected use

3.1.1 The starting point for the design and location of any community building needs to be the use to which it will be put. The facilities required (e.g. size of meeting rooms, numbers of toilets, outdoor space, kitchen) need to reflect this.

3.1.2 Both 2014 and 2018 survey results show that a new village hall would be used and would be important to maintaining a strong and supportive community in this small, rural settlement. The proposed level of use justifies the grant of planning consent and funding for a new hall, irrespective of location.

3.1.3 The 2014 survey produced “many excellent suggestions from Nyewood residents for community activities that they would like to see organised in the hall.” For example:

Sports and fitness (e.g. yoga, pilates, table tennis)

Entertainment (e.g. quizzes, film nights, live music/concerts etc.)

Educational (e.g. computer, photography or language classes etc.)

Arts and Crafts (e.g. markets, classes etc.)

Children (e.g. toddlers, clubs, parties etc.)

Social Events (e.g. bar nights, lunches, suppers, village parties etc.)

3.1.4 The 2018 survey provided further information4. 91% of households expected to use the hall for at least one type of activity and 85% to regularly attend community events or classes etc.

3.1.5 A desire for activities is one thing; Commitment to running them is also required. The old hall was predominantly used for social functions at weekends (Friday night socials, a children’s club and children’s parties). Significantly 64% of respondents said they would be prepared to help with future events in some way and 10 people identified themselves as willing to organise specific events or classes. The remit of the Operating Committee (OC) has included organising monthly events (skittles, hallowe’en, Christmas etc.) and the OC has continued to run events since the hall closed, primarily to keep the community together but also to raise funds for a new hall. It is often the case that popular fundraising events turn into regular activities and they anticipate tea dances, line dancing, Scottish dancing, film nights and a pilates class would be popular.

4 The Future of Nyewood Village Hall – Community Survey report May 2018, Mike Imms 7

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

3.1.6 Given that the old hall closed 5 years ago, a strong commitment to make a new hall viable in terms of community activity, and therefore income, has been demonstrated.

3.1.7 Most of the activities suggested are widespread at village halls. Numbers interested are potentially sufficient to make enough activities viable that the hall could be used virtually every day, although numbers for specific activities within each of the six activity groups (above) are not available. The failure of a few would be unlikely to undermine the viability of a new hall, as experience elsewhere is that unexpected activities start-up which replace those that don’t succeed. Community Cafés are growing in popularity, play an important role in addressing loneliness and isolation and could be an example here.

3.1.8 Current population data for Nyewood is not available because it forms one of several settlements in Harting parish, the level at which census data is available. However, it was noted by all that since the 2011 census more families with young children had moved in, commonly replacing single, older person households. Activities for children are therefore likely to be more popular than before the hall closed. The 2018 survey had asked for numbers of people in each household and with 105 households the population was now thought to be circa 250.

3.1.9 HoNC propose that the old hall is capable of refurbishment. The current hall was regarded as “cosy” (possibly a reflection of intimate size, décor and open fire rather than warmth). Refurbishment would also be more sustainable, as it would retain some of the “embedded energy” of the old structure. However, while HoNC point out the old hall was not actually condemned, and potential use would justify refurbishment, the size of the main hall was accepted in discussion with them to be too small for some activities.

3.1.10 While plans prepared by the Trustees for a new hall at both sites provide for up to 64 to be seated at tables, the current hall is not big enough for that number. HoNC explained that the guidelines for a new hall prepared by the Trustees (i.e. seating 64 at tables), were used as the basis for their design so that costs could be compared: They felt it could be smaller. The trustees dispute in their submission to SDNPA whether the timber framed design could in practice seat 64 and calculate it as seating 48.

3.1.11 However, it was clear from discussion with the Operating Committee (OC), who organise the monthly socials, that in their experience more space was needed both in the hall and kitchen. The kitchen in the old hall is so tiny, and the main hall so small, that Health and Safety were compromised on occasions: Tables had to be set up in the main hall for food preparation and laying out, while for popular events the hall was “crammed”: It was difficult to move and difficult to get in and out of the kitchen. For health and safety that cannot continue. The activities requested in surveys also show a larger main hall is needed. For this reason refurbishment without enlargement is not a realistic option.

8

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

3.1.12 The OC reflected that “it would be dreadful to turn people away”. The fact is that if a bigger hall and kitchen were not provided this would happen. It would impact most the very people who most need the social contact of attending activities at the hall if they routinely found they could not do so because others had got there (or booked seats) first. It would affect both health and wellbeing and community cohesion.

3.1.13 The OC report that some of the newer activities organised before and since the hall closed, such as social nights, talks and quizzes, have been popular and joined by residents of Rogate and Harting. There appears to be some misunderstanding over this: While HoNC stress the importance of having a hall for local people, and some residents feel a larger hall is not needed, the OC (who handle membership records) report that the Social Club membership historically included numbers not living in Nyewood. The OC recognise that residents of Nyewood interact with people living in neighbouring communities, which is to be expected as schools and places of work are shared. The OC confirm that competing with Rogate and Harting Village Halls for large bookings has never been planned, but that sufficient capacity is needed for local people to attend events. This would allow friends to continue to attend too on occasions.

3.1.14 The OC confirmed that while they had initially hoped to accommodate up to 80 seated in a new hall at the new site (representing the numbers attending the popular quizzes) that figure had previously been scaled down to 64 and subsequent reference to 80 was an error on the part of the planning consultant.

3.1.15 The potential use identified on p10 of the report of the 2018 Community Survey mean that the planning conditions imposed on the consent for the new hall on the old site present a problem, as discussed in sections 6 and 8.

3.1.16 During discussion the question of whether there was any evidence that activities would not develop if a new hall were built at one or other site was explored:

3.1.17 HoNC explained that older residents for whom close access to a hall would be most beneficial tend to live in the Hyde Martlet housing at Furze Meadow, or elsewhere near the old hall. Friday night socials were particularly missed by these residents, the cosy atmosphere of the old hall providing a “local” or “working men’s club” in the absence of a pub. The new site was unpopular for the older residents here because it would mean driving or walking along the narrow footways on the unlit street in the dark when cold, wet or icy. It was felt they would be less likely to attend events at the new site. (See section4). The proximity of the old site to the Village Green at Furze Meadow enabled the facilities to be used at the same time for village events.

3.1.18 The Operating Committee felt that as the old site is smaller this could affect the size of activities (reduce numbers attending) rather than which activities take place, particularly if refurbishment takes place rather than new build. At key public celebrations (such as Royal Weddings) they prayed for good 9

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

weather because there wasn’t enough room in the hall, when the garden and the Village Green at Furze Meadow were also in use. The OC felt that once facilities were open in practice people would enjoy using them, as has happened at other halls, and that people would enjoy the view over the countryside. It is noted that the new hall proposals include internal screening to create a smaller, cosy area.

3.1.19 Refurbishment without added facilities is not a realistic option. It is not in the best interests of the community or the charity because it would not enable projected use to take place, current facilities being inadequate to deal with health and safety issues. It was favoured by only 1% of respondents to the community survey. Refurbishment with some added facilities is what is considered in this Options Appraisal.

10

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

4 Location – ease of access

4.1.1 The SDNPA dark skies policy means that Nyewood is unlikely to have new street lighting, so although there is a footway all along the village on one side of the road or the other, it will remain unlit at night.

4.1.2 With an ageing population in rural areas and increasing awareness that social activities are good for reducing loneliness and isolation, there is normally a case for locating a community building close to any housing designed for older people. However, there is no housing designed specifically for older people in Nyewood. Much of the housing is detached family houses with the exception of cottages along the street near the Henry Warren Hall and a small amount of social housing at Furze Meadows. A small housing scheme with some affordable housing is proposed for the builders’ yard occupying the old station, which is closer to the new site.

4.1.3 While any hall has to look to the needs of future generations, and cannot cast its facilities in aspic, the social housing which provides for more disadvantaged individuals is close to the old site, as is the Village Green, and the new site would be less accessible for older or infirm residents living in this vicinity. Looking to the future, the bulk of the population lives in this area so as the community ages, this is where the hall should ideally be located. While lifts might be arranged to the new site, exercise is beneficial to older people so easy access on foot is preferable.

4.1.4 The footway is not continuous and there are no designated crossing points. To access the new site from Furze Meadows, would require crossing the road 3 times, twice if living on the other side. HoNC point out that parents would therefore be unlikely to allow children to walk to the new site on their own, so parents as well as older people therefore more likely to use the car. While cars parked along the street around the current site have the effect of reducing traffic speed to at or within the 30mph limit, the road is straighter at the new site and houses have off road parking. Traffic is therefore faster here. HoNC say minor incidents have taken place but these have not been reported. Consequently measures to improve the footway and crossings would be required to provide for the safety of children and those who are infirm (e.g. partially sighted, walking with aids).

4.1.5 These points are reinforced by the SDNPA Design Officer comments on the 2018 application for the new site:

“Ideally it would be the focal point of the village. However, the proposed location is 680m, a 10-15 minute walk (approximately) from the furthest point in Nyewood; well within the accepted threshold for walking to a community facility. Having said that, access & movement along Habin Hill Road should have been assessed (as part of this project), and measures put in place to improve the footway along the main road. Whilst the proposed site is within a ‘comfortable’ walking distance, it’s not well-connected or inclusive and accessible for all.” 11

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

And

“(2) The proposed Village Hall by reason of location would amount to an inaccessible (pedestrian users) community facility. Contrary to advice contained within the NPPF and our emerging Local Plan.” (Note: Habin Hill Road is incorrect, the title is Nyewood Road).

4.1.6 The new site has space for cycle storage as well as more parking.

4.1.7 The new site access arrangements have been designed to incorporate visibility splays to Highways standards, whereas there is less space for this at the old site, contributing to planning conditions on parking arrangements.

4.1.8 Ease of access is an important point and therefore heavily weighted in Appendix C. The old site is more accessible for more residents without needing to use a car. The new site offers better access if arriving by car.

12

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

5 Effect on neighbours

5.1.1 The Trustees and Operating Committee are obliged to serve the best interests of the charity. These may not be the same as the best interests of neighbours. It is therefore not heavily weighted in Appendix C. This does not mean that the effect on neighbours can be ignored, because of potential planning and licensing objections, and the trustees asked that this Appraisal look at this point.

5.1.2 It has not been possible in the time allocated, or appropriate, to read all the objections or supporting statements to the 2018 application and they are for SDNPA to determine. Those of HoNC, the trustees and statutory consultees have been viewed. There were only 3 objections to the 2014 application for a new hall on the old site, which were viewed. Those indicated some misunderstanding and therefore inappropriate concerns (e.g. about kitchen staff making a noise outside: The Henry Warren Hall is not a pub. It is unlikely the kitchen will be staffed. Volunteers providing catering are likely to be participating in activities).

5.1.3 The SDNPA Design Officer Comments:

“Another factor I have considered is whether the new Village Hall represents a demonstrable improvement to the scenic quality of Nyewood, at its gateway, and to the surrounding valued landscapes. Whilst the new building has the potential to improve scenic quality here – over the lifetime of the project – there is insufficient information to determine whether it meets criteria set out in SNDPA Policy SD5 – Landscape-led Approach. Impacts on the wider landscape character and safeguarding views should be assessed by our Landscape Specialist.

I also have reservations regarding the scale of the proposed residential development, in relation to existing properties and the adverse impact it may have on the informal, but pleasant rural street scene along Habin Hill Road.

Overall, I support the proposed location of the new Village Hall, I also support the proposal for redeveloping the existing site for residential use. Nevertheless, the current proposal (1) for the proposed residential development by reason of its inappropriate scale would represent unsympathetic development of the site and surrounding built environment….”

(Note: Habin Hill Road is incorrect, the title is Nyewood Road).

5.1.4 Initial designs for the new hall on the old site had to be adjusted repeatedly to meet planning advice and neighbour objections. Design of new housing on the old site has been similarly constrained by planning requirements. The comments of the Design Officer above indicate that further work may yet be required on the current proposals. The point here is that the design of a new hall is not a simple planning matter. Delay could arise on any new application that were made for the old site as a result of further neighbour objections over 13

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

matters of detail. HoNC need to be aware just how difficult it proved for the Trustees and OC and their planning consultants to work within the planning constraints, and the work, the costs involved in developing a suitable new design.

5.1.5 Representatives of the trustees and OC have discussed the plans for the new site with the two neighbours, and trustees adjusted the plans to meet their objections: Parking has been placed between the houses and the hall, the hall located and roof elevations adjusted so as to minimise noise and visual disturbance. At the new site the effect on neighbours should therefore be minimal, and less than at the old site, where the site has neighbours on 3 sides.

5.1.6 Neighbours to the old site object that new houses there would prevent them from parking outside it. However, there has never been “entitlement” to park there: Access has always been required. Parking there tends to be in the evenings (after work) and it has become a habit: The consequence of the site’s temporary lack of use. Neighbours will have to adjust to losing spaces whatever the outcome. Were a new hall to be built, access and adequate visibility splay would be required. This objection applies to every option so is not considered further in Section 8.

5.1.7 Neighbours to the old site have objected to the height of the new houses and other specific design points. These are being addressed by the planning consultant. They do not prevent provision of housing there, but may have a small effect on income generated by the site sale. The initial timber framed design is also higher than the existing houses, a point would need to be addressed in any application for planning consent in light of these previous neighbour objections and from a design viewpoint.

5.1.8 HoNC report that the neighbour at 4 New Cottages has an established right of access to deliver wood and oil to the rear of their property. Any formal rights are unlikely because the Henry Warren Hall is a charitable trust whose property was provided to serve the whole community: The trustees would have had to obtain professional advice before entering into any formal agreement with one individual. While the neighbour has crossed the property from time to time for this purpose with the Trustees’ consent, when it has not interfered with use of the hall that does not necessarily establish a right: A legal case would have to be proved. If the claimant lost, the trustees would have to seek the charity’s costs. Having said this, a negotiated solution may potentially be available provided there is no financial loss to the charity.

5.1.9 HoNC report that neighbours to the old site would prefer a “sustainable” timber hall over a brick and tile one. However, this does not “square” with the view also expressed that people would like to keep the old brick hall, so cannot be relied on.

5.1.10 Unfortunately neighbour objections about possible noise (which it is gathered had only once caused a problem) led to unduly onerous planning restrictions on use of the outdoor areas at the old site. As explained in Section 6.1.1, these

14

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

would need to be addressed if the current site were to be used again, otherwise they may curtail community use to an unreasonable extent.

15 www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

6 Facilities provided by each site

6.1.1 In addition to a Main Hall (or meeting area) a village hall ideally needs:

• sufficient toilets for its capacity, including an accessible toilet on the ground floor, where baby changing facilities can also be located, • a kitchen with servery to main meeting area and external access • an internal draught – proof lobby (to provide access to toilets from both kitchen and meeting space, dry storage for wheelchairs and children’s buggies and noticeboard. Helps reduce disturbance and avoid draughts and heat loss as people enter and leave) • storage (cleaning materials and furniture on ground floor. Smaller items and infrequently used equipment can be stored upstairs). • For a regular bar: A separate servery, ideally available to serve teas/coffees as well as alcohol. • Adequate heating and ventilation. • Sufficient parking, including at least one space designated for disabled people.

6.1.2 The site also requires: Bin storage (unless hirers will be required to take rubbish home), external fire access, access to a safe area for young children to play and smoker shelter.

6.1.3 The key determinants for size of main hall are indoor sports, because of the floor area required, and numbers that need to be accommodated at public events (not only entertainments but also public meetings, where insufficient space can fetter democratic engagement).

6.1.4 There are two indoor sports which potentially determine the size of the main hall for Nyewood. Table tennis has been requested, and would require a hall of 8.5m x 4.12m (35.02m2) and a height of 3m for one table5. Although it is not clear from the survey how many people (adults or children) had asked for table tennis the growing number of younger families would support the view that a minimum of one table is likely to be required. The table requires accessible, ground level storage.

6.1.5 Secondly, pilates. Such indoor exercise classes are important for health and wellbeing and a growing use of village halls, providing a steady income. The OC indicated the old hall was too small. Experience elsewhere is that a tutor needs a minimum class size to make an income and cover costs (hall hire, insurance, travel if living outside the village) and that if numbers drop below an average of 6 – 8 the class closes. Each pilates mat requires approx. 3m x 2m, plus space for the tutor. At 54 sq m it would scarcely be economic to run a class in the old hall, and positioning of mats awkward. At 70m2 (new hall old site) or 75m2 (new hall, new site) and with a wider hall there should be sufficient space for pilates (or similar) to be economic. Clear floor space is

5 The Village Hall: Plan, Design and Build, ACRE references Sport England guidance 16

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

required, as for other indoor exercise and children’s parties, so tables and chairs need to be moved to accessible storage.

6.1.6 The Main Activity area of the new hall on the old site for which planning consent has been granted, 70m2, would accommodate two table tennis tables if required while allowing 64 to be accommodated dining, and an audience seated in rows or dancing of 80 (all figures approximate and subject to adequate fire escapes). It should therefore be sufficient for the majority of identified event use for the size of village, though it may occasionally prevent members of the community from attending public events. The size of the Main Activity space of the new hall on the new site, at 75m2, would provide a little more flexibility.

6.1.7 A hall to seat 64 at tables is proposed by the trustees at the new site and HoNC worked on this basis for comparison. The more the space in the main hall is reduced, the more it would compromise the ability of residents to join activities held.

6.1.8 The extent to which the proposals promoted by the trustees, Operating Committee and HoNC meet the requirements set out in 6.1 was discussed with each party, together with any adaptations required.

6.1.9 The Operating Committee held popular monthly markets at the old hall, bringing a coffee machine in, and plan to run these again in future. If regular activities take place which involve provision of food or drink (other than incidental teas/coffees) the organisers of each such activity are likely to have to register as a food business (including by the Operating Committee if running the activity), whether or not run by a voluntary group. This would potentially apply to the Friday night bars and social events and a community café or market. Kitchen and toilet facilities would be need to comply with Environmental Health requirements. While a stainless steel kitchen to “catering standards” is not needed, certain basic facilities are required: refrigeration for certain foods, adequate separate dishwashing and handwashing facilities, surfaces for the layout of dishes, cupboards for storage of crockery and cutlery. These points would have to be addressed in all options. (Further information is set out in ACRE Village Halls Information Sheet 20, Health and Hygiene in Village Halls.).

6.1.10 As indicated above, the old hall would require considerable adaptation and extension to provide facilities required for future use. While this can be done, the whole planning process would have to start afresh with no indication as yet of costings (it appears the HoNC costings for refurbishment did not take the full requirements into account). Because planning consent would be required, similar planning constraints would be expected as of the new hall on the old site for which consent is already granted. The design would be constrained by efforts to retain part of the old structure. VAT would be incurred (see section 8). In the light of all these considerations refurbishment, even with new facilities, does not present an option which is at present clearly deliverable.

17

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

6.1.11 When the trustees took the decision in 2013 not to pursue renovating the old hall they had support from the community for building a new hall on the site. With the help of planning consultants they were able to incorporate much of the heritage attached to the old hall: The bell on the roof, a design in brick and tile, re-installing the front stonework, re-using the wooden doors. These details have been incorporated into the design for a new hall on the new site too. The effort involved in satisfying Chichester DC and SDNPA as well as neighbours had been very considerable, involving approximately 20 iterations of the design for the old site.

6.1.12 The new hall for which planning consent has been granted at the old site would enable all the required facilities to be provided. The design eventually agreed with Chichester DC includes an external storage shed, which is not ideal where heavy equipment such as tables, chairs, table tennis table needs to be moved (and leads to heat loss). However, users may be able to work around internal storage in the main hall for a period until use determines whether a shed would do, or a permanent store were required, when further funds and/or grants might be raised and a planning amendment submitted.

6.1.13 The main facilities problem with the old site are the planning conditions imposed to deal with possible noise disturbance from a garden to the rear of the old site (where there is currently a grassed area and there had been only one previous complaint). As these would be translated into licensing conditions it is likely that they would be imposed on any Premises Licence for a refurbished hall too, in which case it may not be possible to replicate events formerly held.

6.1.14 Condition 7 prohibits entertainments involving live music or voice, amplified recorded music or public address “at any time” outside the building, and condition 8 requires the doors to the function hall to be kept closed at all times of day/evening when live or amplified music or voice occurs inside the building, in order to protect residential amenity. Condition 9 prevents the garden being used between 21.00 and 8am.

6.1.15 No provision is made in these conditions for national or community events such a royal wedding. Any village hall is normally expected to be available for a village fete, royal wedding or similar community celebration during the day, and for children’s birthday parties, when amplified voice and music could be expected either inside or outside, so this effectively curtails such use of the building by the community, which is unreasonable. Licensing conditions are commonly lifted for national celebrations, so the question of whether Planning conditions would then apply need to be investigated. If the community wishes to use the old site, Chichester DC would need to be convinced that there is widespread support (particularly from neighbours) for replacing these conditions. It is suggested that timings for nos. 7 and 8, allowing exceptions for national and community celebrations (a given number of occasions pa.) and with a noise limit at the perimeter of the property (as is usually applied to pubs etc.) would be more appropriate.

18

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

6.1.16 The effect of these conditions is that a new or refurbished hall at the old site will require mechanical ventilation. An air treatment system (e.g. an Air Source Heat Pump) which offers both cooling and heating is an energy efficient means of heating a well-insulated village hall in an off-gas location such as Nyewood, so this should be acceptable.

6.1.17 HoNC have explained that the new timber-framed design hall proposed for the old site is a concept design and accept that it would require further work. The initial design would combine kitchen and bar facilities, with a microwave behind a bar to heat hot food. This would be insufficient to serve the previous, let alone proposed, use of the hall (see 4.8). A regular bar requires storage for glasses and usually a dishwasher. If alcohol is left on the premises overnight, secure storage. This is unlikely to be compatible with catering for activities such as children’s parties, a community café or community events.

6.1.18 There are other points about the initial timber - framed design which would require further attention: This is not exhaustive but, for example, it does not include an entrance lobby, but this could be built on later if space and planning consent permits; Access arrangements for disabled people may require checking for compliance; Internal ceiling height causing heat to rise so that destratification fans are needed to push heat to floor level, otherwise frail or disabled people suffer cold feet (being more sedentary and/or with poor circulation).

6.1.19 It is apparent from HoNC documents that there have been some misunderstandings and a lack of appreciation of all the issues affecting the design of a replacement hall. It is hoped that the discussions held during this Appraisal will help improve understanding throughout the village so that the parties can move forward together. However, with stringent planning, licensing, environmental health and highways conditions to be met it will NOT be possible to meet everyone’s aspirations. Compromise is inevitable. So as to help improve understanding I recommend the Trustees ask their planning consultants to provide detailed feedback on the HoNC design and share this with HoNC.

6.1.20 The funding shortfall, together with parking constraints, led the Trustees to look for a new site for a new hall while applying for planning consent for a new hall on the old site. Unfortunately no landowner was willing to part with a site closer to the current hall. It is huge testament to the determination of the Trustees and Operating Committee that they – and their families and other volunteers - have continued to put effort into finding a solution despite these repeated knockbacks. The work involved in developing both the new hall, old site and new hall, new site projects should not be underestimated.

6.1.21 A new hall at the new site enables all the required facilities to be provided. As indicated in 6.1.5 the size of hall proposed is not excessive.

6.1.22 While the new site would have to meet licensing conditions designed to reduce impact of noise on neighbours the location of the car park provides a buffer. The usual application of noise limits at the perimeter should not curtail 19

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

use of the building to the degree at the old site. The Operating Committee point out that people want to be able to go outside on a summer evening and would enjoy the view and ambience at the new site: The hall would be capable of use for a wider variety of community and private events, including e.g. small wedding anniversary parties.

6.1.23 Advice about future licensing arrangements will need to be obtained from Chichester DC Licensing Department. Operating under a Premises Licence, rather than a Social Club Licence, may prove more flexible. See also ACRE Village Halls Information 9, Entertainment in Village Halls.

20

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

7 Size of sites (including scope for future expansion or alteration)

7.1.1 A village hall site requires:

• Adequate footprint for a main hall with ancillary accommodation • Surfaced external pathways for fire evacuation and access to and from main entrance, kitchen and fire exit doors. • Parking for disabled person(s) close to an accessible entrance • Small garden or patio space for young children to play, seating for older people, barbecue etc. • Sufficient parking to meet local authority requirements with visibility splay etc. • Ideally: Undercover smoking area, storage for cycles, bin store.

7.1.2 Audiences for certain events, such as quizzes and the AGM, appear to be up to 80 when held at Rogate and South Harting Village Halls. While a capacity of 80 – 90 seated would be ideal, with limited resources the focus must be on the needs of Nyewood itself, and both the new hall proposals reflect this. Other venues in the area are available for larger fundraising events and “footloose” purposes such as wedding receptions (i.e. activities which do not need to be held within the community in order to be accessible to the majority of those who want to attend).

7.1.3 Located in the South Downs National Park significant housing development is unlikely. Subject to the earlier comment about storage at the old site, it is therefore unlikely to be necessary for the site at which a new hall is built to be able to accommodate significant future expansion beyond that already planned by the Trustees.

7.1.4 The old site is big enough for a new hall with the above facilities but cannot provide sufficient parking or other external facilities which might be ideal.

7.1.5 The new site offers space for all site facilities and more scope for expansion or alteration in future. At present there is no identified need for this so this has not been heavily weighted.

21

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

8 Parking

8.1.1 Parking has proved a major obstacle to proposals for a new hall on the old site as a result of the limited space available and planning requirements. Nevertheless, while highly weighted it is less important than certain other factors.

8.1.2 HoNC point out that refurbishment on the current footprint would not require planning consent and the parking restrictions applied to the building of a new hall would therefore not be applicable. However, as shown earlier refurbishment would require improvements which demand planning consent so parking conditions would potentially affect refurbishment of the old hall, which previously accommodated 7 to 8 cars.

8.1.3 The new hall for the old site for which consent has been given has 4 spaces, including one designated for disabled people.

8.1.4 The consent for the new hall at the old site originally required overflow parking at the builder’s yard on the old station site “to be retained at all times for their designated purpose unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority”. However, this condition was applied without the site owner’s consent. The Trustees therefore entered into negotiation with the SDNPA as a result of which a variation was obtained.

8.1.5 The case for the variation was well made by the Trustees, explaining that the current site is within 5 minutes’ walk for the majority of residents and the average number of cars driving to the hall for events 2 or 3. They explained the road is quiet in the evenings and that the hall was not designed for large events, which can be accommodated at other halls in the area. Consequently the 3 + 1 disabled provision at the hall was adequate for most events.

8.1.6 Following negotiation, the Trustees obtained a variation allowing out of hours overflow parking at the industrial site instead but conditional on stewarding in order to prevent cars entering the site when full having to back onto the road and preventing any events where more than 4 cars are expected being held during working hours. These conditions are more onerous than those encountered for other community halls, presumably because most new halls have adequate parking for most events. However, they appear in part unnecessary and therefore unreasonable, and are potentially unenforceable.

8.1.7 During the daytime, parking is in practice available along the roadside and at Furze Meadows, because residents are at work. Yet these conditions would unreasonably prevent, for example, a local family holding a funeral tea at the hall. More worryingly, if a regular daytime activity becomes popular, it would have to cease if more than 4 cars regularly arrive. This is unhelpful: The general ageing of the population creates potential future need for daytime activities which contribute to health and wellbeing, and older people (e.g. from the north of the village) may need to have transport to the hall in winter 22

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

when cold, wet and slippery. The daytime restrictions could therefore prevent the hall delivering the activities it should for local people in need in future.

8.1.8 During weekday daylight hours the combination of hiring conditions, signage, removable bollards and a chain across the entrance should be adequate to remind visitors that there is limited parking at or near the hall. Local people will know and understand that parking is limited.

8.1.9 It is in the evening and at weekends that on street parking is not available, and then overflow parking at the industrial site is available (but see below). For daytime weekend events a reasonable alternative to stewarding would be hiring conditions (e.g. for children’s parties) requiring guests to park at the industrial estate, signage at the entrances to the village and approaching the hall to direct people to the overflow site. For a larger event, such as a fete or wedding anniversary party, stewarding is a reasonable condition.

8.1.10 A difficulty is, however, that there is no guarantee that overflow parking at the industrial estate will continue to be available in the longer term, whichever site is chosen for the hall. The brewery has closed and it was understood that while the landowner is the same, the buildings have been sold so individual businesses have their own parking rights. This potentially presents a future problem in relation to meeting the planning consent for the new hall on the old site, the new site having have adequate parking for most community purposes. It would be wise for the Trustees to explore whether a written undertaking could be agreed with one or more businesses whichever site is chosen for the new hall.

8.1.11 During discussion other possible parking solutions were explored: e.g. Taking the opportunity of the transfer of the Village Green from Hyde Martlet Housing to Harting PC to explore whether, suitable gated, overflow spaces could be provided in the corner of the Green for special events, (residents are currently encroaching on the Green so a number of issues could be addressed); exploring with landowners the purchase or (perhaps initially) lease of a site for overflow parking (e.g. the site offered for the new hall).

8.1.12 Additional parking for a new hall at the old site has been explored by trustees but constrained by planning requirements.

8.1.13 The HoNC concept design for a timber framed hall also provides 4 spaces. While HoNC propose a single width entry/exit point and a circulation system, to avoid loss of roadside parking, this is unlikely to be acceptable to Highways. Access would be required for emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance) and unloading (e.g. bar supplies, equipment for children’s activities). Furthermore a circulation system would be unsafe for young children and older users of the hall (hard of hearing and/or sight).

8.1.14 In the longer term a better, long term parking arrangement might be achieved at the old site, but there is no guarantee of this (e.g. lease or purchase land for an overflow site closer to the hall, or, perhaps through Planning Gain and support from SDNPA and others, a Village Car Park with 23

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

cycle facilities).

8.1.15 The new site has space for 12 cars, including one designated for disabled people, which is adequate for most purposes for a village of this size. Overflow parking may also be available at the industrial estate opposite, subject to the comments in 8.1.10.

8.1.16 The new hall application provides for up to 12 cycles. The consent for the old site does not provide specific cycle spaces but cycles could be parked or possibly cycle storage created in the garden to the rear.

24

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

9 Business Plan

9.1.1 Although not, strictly speaking, a planning consideration the SDNPA advised in its pre-application advice that a business plan be prepared to demonstrate that the new hall in a new location would be viable without public subsidy, commensurate with policy towards enabling development. The Business Plan prepared contains the key information required, income and expenditure forecasts (rather than bringing all information into one document). It is supported by the survey results and report so this has been done. It is not heavily weighted in Appendix C.

9.1.2 The business case for a new hall on one site in the village would reasonably be expected to be similar to that for a hall with similar facilities on another site, given that the facilities provided will need to be similar to host the range of activities required by the community. The key exception is that a site constrained by limited parking and restrictive parking conditions could be less attractive for local families holding events (anniversary parties, wakes, children’s parties) as well as for “footloose” hirings.

9.1.3 The objections raised by HoNC to the Business Plan presented for the new hall application were discussed with both parties. As explained in section 11 the objections are not substantiated by experience elsewhere. HoNC have not provided a Business Plan for the timber-framed design or refurbishment project.

9.1.4 HoNC claim the Community Survey led participants to answer in a prejudiced manner e.g. by presenting “unjustified, unsupported financial justification”, a criticism which applies also to the HoNC proposal. This criticism is addressed in part in Sections 10 and 11 but it has to be recognised that it is impossible for any build project to provide certainty until tenders are in (which is usually a later stage in the build process).

25

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

10 Capital cost and potential funding:

Funding is a potential obstacle and heavily weighted in Appendix C.

10.1 Costs

Estimated Notes cost New Hall, old £378,000 April 2018 based on standard cost/m2. This site figure did not go to tender or so potential reductions or additionals have not been examined.

Timber frame £232,000 + While volunteers often help complete a hall proposal for £52,000 project (decorating, landscaping) relying on a old site volunteer significant level of volunteer (or at-cost) labour professional input bears the risk of delay and/or cost over-run if that help becomes unavailable at a critical point (e.g. owing to illness or other paying contracts). A loan or underwriting facility would therefore be essential to cover this risk. This cost is based on soil stabilisation reducing the depth of foundations. This design is at concept stage and would require further work with potential additional costs.

New Hall, new £575,000, Based on standard cost/m2. No tenders or site including review by a QS yet undertaken. land at £100k

Renovation of £197,000 - Higher figure includes steel frame, new kitchen old hall £260,000 and toilet for disabled people. (Trustees) HoNC figure excludes additional facilities. £198,000 (HoNC)

10.1.1 VAT: The construction of a new, charitable village hall is eligible for zero rate VAT under the Finance Act 1988. HMRC are unlikely to enter into correspondence to confirm eligibility owing to resource constraints but will refer enquirers to HMRC Notice 7086, which contains the relevant certificate which is issued to the builder by the charity before construction commences.

6 HMRC VAT Notice 708 Buildings and Construction 26

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

10.1.2 Professional fees are standard rated.

10.1.3 The refurbishment or alteration of the old hall would be subject to standard rate VAT. The Budget 2018 allocated a £3million grant fund for the refund of VAT on major village hall improvement projects. This cash limited 20% grant scheme is likely to be launched in Spring 2019 and there is no guarantee it will continue. Were sufficient other funding for refurbishment of the old hall to be available in 2019/20, and planning consent granted for any improvements, the project could be eligible. However, it would be unwise to rush any planning in order to meet this timescale.

10.2 Potential Funding

10.2.1 The potential funding sources currently available to a village hall build project are shown in Appendix 2. Unfortunately the external funding available for capital community building projects has reduced since the trustees first looked into refurbishment of the old hall. WSCC grants have dropped from up to £30,000 to up to £5,000. LEADER closes in 2019. The Low Carbon Buildings Fund, CSEP and other funding for renewable energy have closed. Plunkett Foundation and the Community Business Fund only support Community Enterprises such as community shops and pubs.

10.2.2 Potentially a total of £35,000 could be available from Chichester DC, SDNPA and Awards for All (A4A), subject to making a good case to each. The Big Lottery Fund may now offer modest capital funding but a convincing case would be required based around the needs of the community. It is important to note that providing a Social Club or bar is not a priority for funders, but providing a servery which can be used as a bar is acceptable.

10.2.3 All Parish Councils have power to provide grant funding for a capital community building project under S19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. They also have the ability to apply for borrowing approval from the Government Debt Office in order to grant aid a community project serving their parish. The maximum normally available is £500,000. It can be a cost effective means of contributing funding for a community project which has low impact for ratepayers but long term benefit, because of the leverage to other funding.

10.2.4 Harting Parish Council have confirmed that they would not fund the shortfall of £200,000 for the refurbishment or rebuilding of the Henry Warren Hall as it is not a whole parish facility. Harting has a large village hall serving the principal settlement so faces the not uncommon problem of how to allocate support between a number of community facilities. However, it needs to be recognised that a community building is the principle means by which community support and cohesion is created in a settlement and that in rural areas, as in urban areas, authorities do need to support a number of such buildings. The lack of public transport and safe pedestrian access to facilities in other villages in all weathers also needs to be borne in mind. Virtually all the ratepayers served by the Henry Warren Hall reside in Harting (in West Harting, Nyewood and outlying areas) so the prime responsibility for the parish council 27

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

element of the funding lies with Harting Parish Council, while a small donation from Rogate Parish Council would reflect its use by smaller numbers of Rogate residents.

10.2.5 The extent to which any Parish Council provides financial support is for the Council to determine in the light of a case presented by local people. If there is a shortfall in funding it will be open to Nyewood residents to press the Parish Council for support. However, the project would need to have the clear support of the community if borrowing from the Government Debt Office is required by the PC, because evidence of community support is required. It would therefore be essential that all parties were working together to achieve this. The case for this is that:

• residents of Nyewood have voted overwhelmingly for a new hall, • the community has no shop, post office or pub and • there is clearly a need for a community meeting facility. • In a competitive funding environment grant applications elsewhere tend to have a better chance of success if a PC shows its support for the project with the promise of a significant contribution

10.2.6 HoNC believe7 that a “new traditional timber-framed Natural Building is very likely to attract substantial grant funding assistance” for reasons including sustainable construction methods, and environmental sustainability, the level of community support and use of volunteer labour. While these factors are important and likely to help grant applications there is currently a lack of potential funding sources for community led village hall projects as shown in Appendix 2: Only a handful of the 15 funds listed by HoNC now support village hall projects. Sources that do fund, should be able to fund a new hall of traditional or sustainable construction at either site providing community need and support is evidenced. Environmental sustainability can be designed into a hall of traditional construction and there may be scope for joint working by HoNC and the Trustees to achieve such improvements to the new hall design at either site so that these good ambitions are met as far as practicable. If straw bale building involving children is not possible, a mural or similar might be.

10.2.7 Appendix 2 shows that a target of approx. £35,000 - £75,000 grant funding for either new hall or a refurbishment project could potentially be achievable, not including a contribution from Harting Parish Council. Repaying a small loan from the RCBLF up to £20,000 should be affordable. The Trustees have £140,000 in hand after heavy planning application and design costs. A fundraising appeal has been awaiting the grant of planning permission. The funds in hand include a significant donation, proceeds from events of about £10K, the original Louisa Warren bequest and Gift Aid.

10.2.8 The trustees’ figures for construction cost at the new site, £575,000, and site sale, £399,000, imply there would be a shortfall of £36,000. This figure could

7 Restoring the Heart of Nyewood, The Heart of Nyewood Committee, August 2018 28

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

potentially be covered by available grant funding which would make the project fully fundable.

10.2.9 In response to the planning application for the new site HoNC made the case that the cost for its construction are likely to be approx. £97,000 higher than given, and the net land value £349,230, not £399,249. The assertions as to additional costs have not been tested but the contingency figures are low. it potentially offers a “worst case scenario”. If correct this would require an additional £114,000. Potential grant funding, an RCBLF loan, funding from Harting Parish Council and/or additional fundraising would be required.

10.2.10 The key question is how much additional funding would be required to deliver a new hall on the current site and whether this can be raised without the timescale for delivery receding further into the future. The timber frame design is a concept design which has not been tested at planning (which would take a considerable amount of time and further expense e.g. in planning fees). It appears likely to cost more than the £233,000 currently estimated, so the shortfall currently given of £93,000 is likely to be higher.

10.2.11 It would therefore be prudent to work from the Trustees’ higher figure for building a new hall on the old site, £378,000 . The gap between cost and available funding of £140,000 is £238,000. If £35,000 grant funding is available, a further £203,000 would be required. This would require a significant level of funding from personal pledges, grants and volunteer labour unless considerable cost savings of the magnitude suggested by HoNC could be achieved.

10.2.12 Looking at refurbishment it would also be prudent to work from the higher of the two refurbishment figures as this includes some of the additional facilities required. It gives a shortfall of £120,000. Planning consent and associated fees and delay would be inevitable. While the shortfall is potentially achievable it is questionable whether this level of refurbishment would deliver the facilities the community needs for the future, i.e. it would not be in the best interests of the charity.

10.2.13 The conclusion must be that building a new hall on the old site will be more difficult to fund than building on a new site. Nevertheless the ideas underlying the proposals brought forward by HoNC (such as community volunteer labour, sourcing local timber and recycling materials from the old hall under the patio) are worth investigating further. The question is whether, with their support and that of the wider community, sufficient funds can be raised to enable building work to proceed without incurring unreasonable further delay. This is heavily weighted in Appendix C, being of fundamental importance.

29

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

11 Revenue financing

11.1.1 HoNC comment in relation to the income projections provided by the trustees in Para 4.1.6 of the Nov 2018 version of “Restoring the Heart of Nyewood”: “there is no credible cost analysis of projected income”. However, the figures used (e.g. 2 classes, 10 hires, for the first year, growing to 5 and 20 respectively in 3 years) are modest and reasonable. The old hall washed its face financially despite inadequate facilities, with bar income covering ordinary running costs.

11.1.2 It is extremely difficult for communities to predict accurately the use that a new hall will receive, even those which have an existing hall. Most find when the facility actually opens that their predictions were on the modest side, i.e. use is greater than expected, and that some expected uses fail to materialise while others come forward. Communities are not static: The leaders of activities move in or out, or their circumstances change. Overall the picture from the 2009 National VH survey was one of growth, with some traditional activities (such as WIs) waning while fitness and dance classes, activities for toddlers, art classes had grown.

11.1.3 The trustees’ predicted expenditure figures are also reasonable:

• For a small hall an insurance premium circa £1,000 pa is usual. The figure given was provided by a specialist village hall insurance provider and the market is competitive. The insurance £2,800 figure quoted by HoNC would be high for a small village hall and turned out to be for a new sports pavilion, possibly including liabilities for the recreation ground. • Utility and maintenance costs are variable costs, a low initial figure to be expected, rising as use and income rises. • The hall has been largely reliant on volunteers in the past and this could be expected to continue for a period while use is light, cleaning and booking admin costs rising if use and income rises. • 80% mandatory charity rate relief should be available. The case could be made for 100% relief for the first year or so. • The “hall comparison table” given by HoNC includes capital improvements at Rogate, which the Charity Commission website shows normally makes a surplus or breaks even. The average is a surplus.

11.1.4 In the light of the above Revenue Financing has low weighting in Appendix C.

30

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

12 Governance

12.1.1 The current governance arrangements for the Henry Warren Village Club are set out in the 1936 Will of Louisa Warren, an unusual arrangement for a village hall or similar community building. The Will provides for the appointment of “Management Trustees” and a “Committee of Management of the Club” . The Management Trustees appoint new Management Trustees when needed. The Will is silent as to appointment of the Committee of Management, now called the Operating Committee (OC).

12.1.2 HoNC have made the case that the Will’s wording “to retain the said piece of land the buildings thereon… and permit the same to be occupied and used for the purposes of the said Club” means that the site must always be used for the purposes of the charity and cannot be sold to fund a new hall. This is not the case. The effect of these words is that the property is classed as “designated” property, which means that it is to be used for the charity’s objects, as opposed to being held as an investment. It is recognised that charities cannot be cast in aspic and there can be good reasons to sell charity property. The procedures to be followed are set out in The Charities Act 2011.

12.1.3 It is important for people to understand how governance impacts decision- making for the charity trustees and OC.

12.1.4 All trustees are obliged to act in the best interests of the charity. This is not necessarily the same as the interests of local individuals or other organisations. It is clear that the Trustees and OC have been conscious of this obligation, acting on professional advice throughout the development of the project and aiming to provide for the needs of the village in 50 - 100 years’ time (much as Louisa Warren did). The trustees and OC have committed a great deal of time and effort to enable the charity to deliver better facilities over the last 7 years since refurbishment was first explored.

12.1.5 Pursuing a new site for a new hall was an entirely rational decision in the best interests of the charity in a difficult funding climate.

12.1.6 The charity exists to provide a facility for the community. While HoNC suggest more consultation should have taken place, the trustees have checked the community’s views at several key points over the last 7 years.

12.1.7 Given their obligation to act in the best interests of the charity, if planning consent is granted for the new site and the enabling development to fund it, it would be very difficult for the trustees to regard another solution as being in the best interests of the charity if it cannot be funded. To be clear: In that case, in order to pursue a solution at the old site, the Trustees would need to be satisfied that it would not merely be the most popular solution (i.e. have substantial majority support), but also achievable (deliverable, fundable) and in the best long term interests of the charity (provide the better site for the community e.g. use and access). This is not a question of personalities: Were 31

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

the current Trustees (or OC) to change, or governance updated (see 12.1.9 below), new trustees would be faced with the same considerations.

12.1.8 The future of the Hall is giving rise to strong feelings. It is incumbent on all parties to avoid these causing division and to work together to deliver a project which is both achievable and has the clear support of the majority of the community. Hopefully the interest shown by HoNC can help achieve a new hall that everybody can be proud of.

12.1.9 A capital project is an opportunity for charity trustees to consider whether current governance arrangements are appropriate. The trust is currently unincorporated. Incorporation provides limited liability protection for trustees, which is advantageous when letting a large build contract. Options available include the Charity Commission approved model constitution for a Charitable Incorporated Organisation, CIO, for village halls which is produced by ACRE, or incorporation as a Charitable Company Limited by Guarantee or as a Community Benefit Society. The CIO is more commonly chosen for a village hall. Further advice can be provided.

32

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

13 Summary and conclusions

13.1.1 The proposed relocation of a centrally located community building is a difficult decision for any community. What suits one community does not necessarily suit another: Every village is different. It is important, however, that time and careful consideration is given to the decision and that the community have a full understanding of all the issues, because it is a decision which has community benefit at its heart and has to last 50 – 100 years. It is to the credit of the trustees and Operating Committee that they have re- consulted the community at key stages and responded to the feedback.

13.1.2 This is an independent and objective appraisal of the options available to the trustees of the Henry Warren Village club at February 2019, commissioned by the trustees. It is summarised in numerical terms in Appendix C, where weighting has been ascribed to reflect which of the factors addressed in the body of this report are more important. The results are as follows:

Option Count Take Forward Refurbishment 301 No New Hall, Old site 480 As Plan B (traditional brick design) Wooden frame new 392 No – but see below design, old site New Hall, New site 539 As Plan A (traditional brick design)

13.1.3 The refurbishment option is not realistic owing to the combination of difficulties it presents (e.g. it does not provide the facilities needed, risk of delay, planning, funding), although the affection for the history attached to the old hall is recognised.

13.1.4 A new timber frame design as proposed by HoNC on the old site also bears significant problems (achieving the facilities needed for a new hall, obtaining planning consent, added fees, delay, funding).

13.1.5 At this point the two options that could be taken forward are building a new hall on the new site or building the new hall on the old site for which planning consent has already been granted (and is still live). While the new hall, new site scores highest, as it better meets the criteria as a whole, when one looks at the “soft criteria” – the Desirability section – alone, the new hall, old site is higher scoring, indicating it is potentially better for community cohesion. The major obstacle to building a new hall on the current site is funding. A further problem is restriction on use imposed by CDC planning conditions. Other issues have a lesser bearing. The sale of the old site would largely fund the new hall, new site and thus make good use of the Trust’s resources. The 2018 survey report rightly calls this the difference between “head” and “heart”.

33

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

13.1.6 The community has already been without a hall for 5 years. The Trustees and Operating Committee have put a huge amount of their own time and resources into developing these two good sets of new hall proposals, both of which have good support from the community (see 1.1.5 and 1.1.6). It would benefit nobody and risk losing impetus if indecision were to drag on.

13.1.7 The expiry in May 2019 of the options to purchase land for the new hall presents a clear decision path and timescale which ultimately shapes the final decision. This is explained in the following paragraphs. (See also Governance section).

13.1.8 It is imperative that the enabling planning applications for the new site are decided by SDNPA as soon as possible. A decision will provide the community with clarity and, if granted, a deliverable means of replacing the Henry Warren Village Club: Plan A.

13.1.9 If consent is refused, the trustees have two options: To make an appeal or turn to Plan B (see below).

13.1.10 If consent is granted, it would be in the best interests of the charity for the trustees to keep their options open for as long as possible and to ask the landowners for an extension to the options to purchase, to an agreed timescale. This would be beneficial because it would allow time for the processes associated with sale of charity property, to consider any conditions to the consent(s) for Plan A and to take account of any changing circumstances. Such circumstances may make it necessary to test whether Plan B is deliverable (i.e. whether the gap in funding can be raised and whether SDNPA would adjust the planning conditions on the old site).

13.1.11 If consent is granted and either or both landowners refuse an extension to the options to purchase the trustees will have little alternative to proceeding with Plan A (subject to the processes associated with the sale of charity property and other points in 13.1.10), as they must act in the best interests of the charity.

13.1.12 “Plan B” has insufficient funding in place and would therefore require an “all out effort” by the community to actively pursue fundraising, donations and pledges of support from local people to help the trustees win grants.

13.1.13 There are potentially design details which could help make either Plan A or Plan B more environmentally and financially sustainable. For example: Reclaiming parts of the old building (for foundations or patio), sourcing local timber and other building supplies, Air Source Heat Pumps for heating and ventilation and/or other renewable energy sources, grey water recycling, and involving the skills of local volunteers and schoolchildren (e.g. in decor), depending on community support. Such details are clearly important to the community and ideas will need to be taken on board through to opening and beyond.

34

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

13.1.14 Both old and new sites have the potential to deliver a good new community facility for Nyewood, one the community would enjoy using and be proud of. The process of raising funds for and building a new hall can bring people together and, despite all the work, become a joyous and fulfilling project, which creates a strong community spirit. It is hoped this is the outcome achieved for Nyewood, whichever the location of the new hall.

35

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

14 Appendix A - References

The Future of the Village Hall – Community Briefing to Community Survey, Trustees of the Henry Warren Memorial Hall, April 2018

The Future of Nyewood Village Hall – Community Survey 2018, Mike Imms, May 2018

Restoring the Heart of Nyewood – Heart of Nyewood Committee, August 2018

Governing document for Henry Warren Village Club

Charity Commission website – Henry Warren Village Club, reg charity 230852, Jan 2019

Charity Commission publication – The Good Trustee Guide CC3

ACRE publications: e.g. Plan, Design and Build the Village Hall, Village Hall Information Sheets, National Village Halls Survey 2009.

36

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

15 Appendix B – Potential Funding Sources

Potential Funding Sources for the Henry Warren Village Hall – January 2019

Costs/Source New Hall, New Refurbished Comment old site Hall, Hall new site £233,000 + £575,000 £198,000 + Promoters figures volunteer volunteer rounded up to nearest to 378,000 ‘000. Sale of old site x 400,000 x Trustee figures Henry Warren √ √ √ £140,000 to date. Fundraising Further fundraising potential e.g. launch Appeal. South Harting PC √ √ √ Via precept or borrowing. Max usually £500,000. Rogate PC √ √ √ Small donation reasonable. Chichester DC √ √ √ Max £15,000. WSCC √ √ √ Max £5,000 from Community Initiative Fund, via Crowdfunding Garfield Weston √ √ √ Although max is Foundation £30,000 smaller grants may be awarded. Other small grant √ √ √ Tend to open and schemes e.g. close with short Screwfix, Postcode deadlines and offer Lottery, small amounts. VH supermarkets success not great. May assist when close to target. Lottery A4A √ √ √ Max £10,000 towards a specific project e.g. fitting kitchen, equipment. Lottery Reaching √ √ Unlikely? If a good case can be Communities made based on community need. Discussion with lottery staff essential. South Downs NP √ √ √ Max £10,000. Favours Sustainable Fund environmentally sustainable projects. Bernard Sunley √ √ √ Max usually £5,000 Foundation 37

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

Landfill funder? Defra/ACRE Rural √ √ √ Max normally £20,000. Community Application via AirS Buildings Loan Fund VAT refund grant x – 0% VAT X – 0% √ One off fund launches VAT 2019. Strong competition likely. .

√ = likely to be eligible.

38

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

16 Appendix C – Assessment Criteria and Scoring

Deliver Delivery y option 2: Deliver option New Hall y Delivery option 2: New Delivery 3: New Delivery option 3: New old site: option Delivery option 1: Hall old site: Design Delivery option 4: New option 1: Hall old Weighting Hall old site: New timber Design 4: New Refurbishment approved by Hall, new site Refurbishmen site: (1-10, based design approved Hall, CDC/SDNPA t New Assessment where 10 by new timber Criteria is most CDC/SDNP site based important A ) design Scor Scor Scor Scor e Rationale / e Rationale / e Rationale / e Rationale / Score Score Score Score (10 = Comments (10 = Comments (10 = Comments (10 = Comments high) high) high) high) Criteria 1: With expanded Plan provides Plan aims to Plan provides Option kitchen and for all provide for all all facilities enables toilet facilities the community use community use required to projected former level of identified to to take place meet projected range of 10 4 use can be 10 take place. 6 but details (lack 10 community use 40 100 60 100 community accommodated kitchen, unsafe use to take . circulation of place cars) potentially limit it. Criteria 2: Option is close to Option is close Option is close Option is less Degree to the majority of to the majority to the majority accessible to which the community of the of the the majority of Desirability option is but less community but community but the community accessible accessible to less accessible less accessible but more 10 7 9 9 3 70 90 90 30 for the residents at to residents at to residents at accessible to community northern end northern end northern end residents at and not fully northern end accessible for disabled people Criteria 3: Option has little 3 objected. 3 objected to Fewer Effect of effect on Planning old site. neighbours, option on neighbours as conditions Planning whose

neighbours 2 8 activities would 6 would reduce 6 conditions likely 9 objections have 16 12 12 18 be re-instated effect of noise to be required been taken on without increase from those would reduce board in siting in attendance. outside at night. effect of noise and height of 39

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

Parking outside Parking outside from those building. No lost. lost. outside at night. parking Parking outside implications for lost. neighbours.

Criteria 4: Site is sufficient Site is sufficient Site is sufficient Allows full range Option site for adequately for adequately for adequately of activities and is big sized building but sized building sized building future enough for not all external but not all but not all expansion or all internal facilities e.g. external external alteration and garden, facilities e.g. facilities e.g. external 6 5 sufficient parking 5 garden, 5 garden, 10 30 30 30 60 facilities sufficient sufficient and allows parking parking future expansion or alteration Criteria Key facilities Building plan Building plan Option provides 5:Option required, such as provides most does not the full range of provides all a larger kitchen, of the facilities provide all facilities the facilities larger main hall required for facilities required for 10 3 9 6 10 30 90 60 100 a village and accessible community use required e.g. community use Feasibility Feasibility hall for toilet, not kitchen, lobby Nyewood available needs Criteria 6: Site Site only Site only Site Option has accommodates accommodate accommodate accommodate sufficient about 8 cars with s 4 cars. s 4 cars. s sufficient cars parking for current hall Overflow Overflow for most the range footprint parking at parking at daytime 7 8 4 4 9 56 28 28 63 of industrial estate. industrial estate. activities, projected overflow community evening use parking at industrial estate.

40

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex

Criteria 7: No Business Plan Business Plan Business Plan Business plan Option has prepared and potentially as potentially contains a robust prejudiced by for new site could be as for financial Business limited facilities because new site if plan forecasts and Plan and range of use provides provides range of other 1 1 6 4 8 1 6 4 8 facilities for all facilities for all information community use community use usually in a BP to take place, to take place, available e.g. in but not but not survey report. prepared prepared Criteria 8: Option has initial Option has Option has Option has Option has costings and been robustly initial costings, been robustly adequately some work on costed but dependent on costed and robust funding potential volunteers, but funding fully costings funding only not tested and identified. Any 10 4 7 6 10 40 70 60 100 and partially therefore shortfall potential identified difficult to potentially funding identify to what achievable. Viability identified extent funding complete Criteria 9: No income and Income and Income and Income and Option is expenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure financially predictions. Hall predictions predictions predictions viable with washed its face available for available for available show adequate previously. new hall option new hall option Option is revenue should apply should apply, financially 6 3 9 8 10 18 54 48 60 predictions subject to viable, verified which adequate as achievable cover facilities being predicted provided expenditur e

Total scores 301 480 392 539

41

www.ruralsussex.org.uk ©Action in rural Sussex