Parish of St James the Great, Petts Wood
Should we Redevelop our Hall/Social Centre?
Parish Survey - Full Report
1.
Introduction
1.1. For some
while there has been discussion among parishioners (and others) as to the state
of our Hall and Social Centre (the latter embracing all the other aspects of
our complex, including meeting rooms, toilets, kitchen, sacristies, etc, apart
from the church itself and the presbytery). Early in 2009 a small Scoping Team
was formed from the membership of our Mission & Planning Team (MaP) and our
Pastoral & Advisory Team (PAT), to consider whether there was a project
here for the parish and if so what was its scope. Early questions included
whether there was widespread agreement that a substantial redevelopment was
needed and how matters should be carried forward. A short discussion took place
at the Parish Forum meeting in March.
1.2. At the end
of May 2009 the Scoping Team launched a survey, with the aim of discerning
parish views on some initial key questions - whether parishioners agreed a
substantial redevelopment was needed and, if it was, was there sufficient
willingness to meet costs. The survey forms are reproduced at the end of this
report, as an Appendix. Up to 29th July, when the survey was
‘closed’, 251 individual responses were received, together with responses on
behalf of 16 of the groups which use the Hall/Social Centre.
1.2.1. All*
responses, word-for-word, have been entered on an internet-based piece of
software called Survey Monkey. *(except for the pre-school, for which our standard
questionnaire was not very suitable, so their views, summarised in section10
below, were obtained by direct interview.)
1.2.1.1.
Parishioners with access to the internet can view the
responses by visiting the parish website and following the link on the home
page. The resulting page has links to
individual responses, group responses and also to this report.
1.3. This (draft)
report sets out fairly fully the results of the survey.
1.3.1. The questionnaire included a number of
questions with multiple-choice answers, which can be summarised quite simply.
1.3.2. However ‘free-style’ comments were also invited and
many were made. This report attempts to convey the overall sense of such
comments, but ultimately there is no substitute for reading the comments
themselves, which interested parishioners (with access to the internet - see
1.2.1.1 above) are invited to do. These comments will also be available to any
team(s) which might be established to carry work forward.
1.3.3. The (draft)
report also suggests a number of conclusions. These conclusions were subjected
to a process of further discernment, via a discussion with MaP and PAT which
took place on 3rd September (based on an earlier draft of this
report), and then in a meeting open to the whole parish (the Parish Forum) on
6th October. It is hoped that by then the conclusions can be discerned more
clearly and that we can with confidence proceed to an agreed next stage.
1.4. The Scoping
Team recognised very clearly it was seeking only the parish’s initial views in
principle, ie prior to considering any specific possibilities.
1.5. The Scoping
Team wishes to stress that the questionnaire was constructed in a genuine
attempt to discern the parish’s views, without prejudging what would emerge. It
was felt that we needed to know from the start whether
a) the parish agreed that a development was needed,
b) that now was an acceptable time to embark on the
work and
c) that the parish as a whole was prepared to pay for
it.
Depending on
responses, the idea of a development project could well have been a
non-starter. The most that might have been expected would have been a general
willingness to proceed to some further investigations, which themselves would
be without pre-commitment by the parish as to outcome.
2.
Number of
Replies.
2.1. The Scoping
Team is very grateful to the 251 people (and 16 Groups) who took the time and
trouble to respond, answering most or all of the questions, and with a
significant proportion providing further thoughtful comments as well.
2.2. Such a
volume of response gives a very good insight into the range of opinions among
our parishioners.
2.3. We estimate
that this represents a percentage response rate perhaps in the mid to high 30s.
Our reasoning is as follows:
2.3.1. We
distributed around 750 survey forms to individuals. There may be a number of
parishioners who did not pick up a form at all (offset by any parishioners who
may have picked up more than one form). This would suggest a response rate in
the region of perhaps just over 30%. But …
2.3.2. . . there
are 538 unique addresses on the parish register, which is probably our best
guess at the number of households in the parish. Although we asked as clearly
as we could for each individual adult/confirmed parishioner to complete
his/her own form, it is evident from a few of the forms that some couples have
indeed done just one form between them. To this extent the views we have
received will represent a somewhat higher proportion of our parish than that
generated by the calculation in 2.3.1.
2.3.3. Hence our
guess of mid to high 30’s percent.
2.4. The
significance of a response rate in the mid to high 30’s percent was discussed
with MaP and PAT. The general feeling, based on knowledge of surveys done in
other parishes, was that this was quite a good response rate. Indeed it
compares quite reasonably to the sort of response rates we sometimes see in
national elections! Even so, it is still a minority of parishioners. The
following thoughts were considered relevant:
2.4.1. We know that
pretty well every parishioner was given the chance to participate in the
survey. It is every parishioner’s right to refrain from giving his/her views.
2.4.2. It may be
reasonable to surmise that those holding strong views on the questions posed
are much more likely to express views. Perhaps many of those refraining from
completing their survey form do not feel strongly on the issues raised.
2.4.3. With regard
to non-responders, just as in a general election, anyone refraining from
casting a vote is, implicitly, indicating a willingness to accept the outcome
whatever it may be. And since the survey was very much an initial trawl
of views, without the presenting of specific proposals, many parishioners may
have felt not yet ready to express views. Some would probably have been folk
who intended to respond but never got round to it. Some may simply have felt disengaged,
and not prepared to play any part.
2.4.4. All in all
it is felt that, for purposes of deciding whether to proceed to the next stage
of investigation, the views expressed can be taken as representative. However
when, as in this case, the outcome could eventually involve the need to raise
significant sums of money it would be incautious of the parish to commit itself
to such major expenditure without a clearer indication of a more widespread
willingness to share the costs.
3.
Parishioners
3.1. All but 7 of
the 251 respondents can be identified as St James’ parishioners.
3.1.1. One of the 7
wrote in that she was a visitor (and Firmly Agreed that the Hall/Centre was in
need of substantial development, describing it as “Very dark – Depressing”).
3.1.2. Of the
remaining 6 we suspect they may be parishioners who just overlooked the
particular question.
3.1.3. We have
allowed all the responses from these 7 to be included in the analysis below
(though excluding them would make little difference to the overall picture).
3.2. Reported
Usage of Hall/Social Centre.
|
Regular
User |
32% |
|
Occasional
User |
44% |
|
Only for
events not connected with church* |
2% |
|
No usage
reported |
22% |
* a number
of regular and occasional users additionally reported that they also sometimes
used the Hall/Centre for events not connected with the church.
4.
Is the
Hall/Social Centre in need of some fairly substantial redevelopment? And is now
a good time to be getting on with it?
4.1. 245 out of
the 251 answered these questions.
4.2. Responses to
the first of the two questions “Do you
agree that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of some fairly substantial
redevelopment?” were as follows:
|
|
Do you agree that the Hall/Social
Centre is in need of some fairly substantial redevelopment? |
||
|
|
Agree/Firmly Agree |
Not Sure |
Disagree/Firmly Disagree |
|
All Respondents |
63% |
16% |
21% |
|
Regular
Users (79) |
63% |
12% |
25% |
|
Occasional
Users (109) |
72% |
10% |
18% |
|
Non-Users
(52) |
50% |
33% |
17% |
4.2.1. A pretty
impressive 63% of respondents either Agreed or Firmly Agreed with the
proposition. It should be noted though that there was a range of views as to
what degree of redevelopment was required. Those who either Disagreed or Firmly
Disagreed formed a not-inconsiderable 21% of all respondents. Thus of those who
expressed a view, the split was about 3 : 1 in favour of the need for some fairly
substantial redevelopment. 16% of respondents were Not Sure
4.2.2. Analysing
these responses according to usage of the Hall/Social Centre,
4.2.2.1.
Regular Users: unsurprisingly, a smaller proportion of
this group was Not Sure about the need for redevelopment. Of those expressing a
view, the split was ‘only’ about 2.5 : 1. This again is probably unsurprising
since regular users might be expected to include those who are pretty much
happy with how things are.
4.2.2.2.
Occasional Users, the largest of the ‘by usage’
groups, showed a greater level of dissatisfaction with the condition of the
Hall/Social Centre, with the 72% who Agree or Firmly Agree with the need for
redevelopment outweighing by 4 : 1 those who Disagree or Firmly Disagree. This
group showed the lowest Not Sure proportion. This may be a significant finding.
Perhaps many of those who, when they have to, come to parish events/activities
in the Hall/Social Centre might participate more frequently within a
redeveloped complex.
4.2.2.3.
Of Non-users of the Hall/Social Centre, a much higher
proportion, 33%, were Not Sure - unsurprising. Of those expressing a view, the
split was similar to that for All Respondents, viz about 3:1.
4.3. If the parish as a whole considers that the
Hall/Social Centre is in need of substantial development, is now a good time to
be getting on with it?
4.3.1. The overall
response to this question was:
|
Yes, now is a good time |
51% |
|
Not sure |
22% |
|
No, not a good time |
27% |
4.3.2. ‘Votes’ in
favour of the ‘now is a good time’ question are supported in some cases by
comments such as “Now is as good as any a
time”, or “Any delay or
procrastination in redeveloping the Hall/Social Centre will add to the costs.
There is no better time than the present to completely rebuild the Hall/Social
Centre”.
4.3.3. Comments the
other way have included concern about the effect of the recession on families – “With the credit crunch and rising
unemployment quite a few parishioners must worry about committing themselves to
spending extra money”. Some comments though express clearly strongly-held
views that to embark on a costly redevelopment would be “a misjudgement”, that it would
be “wise to NOT burden the parish with extra debt as many families are unsure
about their jobs”, or in other ways it would quite wrong for us to be
thinking about spending large sums in this way – “I feel that it is irresponsible to be considering what is a luxury in
the current economic climate and it will be very divisive within the Parish”.
4.3.4. The Scoping
Team, supported by MaP and PAT, agree fully that the position of families affected
by the recession has to be taken into full account. Some comments are included
in section 5.2.3 below.
4.3.5. On a scan
through the written-in comments for Part A of the form some 40 or more
statements have been identified (some interpretation is necessary) saying with
varying degrees of force that we should be looking at refurbishment, not a
complete rebuild.
4.3.5.1.
In a few cases the comments indicate that the
objection to full rebuild is on cost grounds– “I would like to have known rough COSTING QUOTES for the different
scenarios BEFORE answering this question, as it might sway my decision.”
4.3.5.2.
Such comments presumably pre-suppose that a full
rebuild would necessarily be more expensive than a refurbishment. This may be
pre-judging the issue, and the Scoping Team suggests that further exploration
of possibilities should not exclude the possibility of rebuild until such time
as we know it is more expensive. MaP/PAT supported this view, adding
that a decision between refurbishment and rebuild would not be one wholly to be
resolved on cost grounds alone – it may be that for a small amount more a
rebuild would give much better facilities.
4.3.6. Several
written-in comments indicate an instinctive preference for avoiding too
elaborate a redevelopment.
4.3.7. There was a
strong correlation between responses to this question and the previous ‘need
for substantial redevelopment’ question. In the following graphical display,
each column shows the number of ‘votes’ to the ‘Do you Agree on the need for
substantial redevelopment?’ question. Within each column, each band shows the
number voting according to the ‘Is now a good
time?’
question.
So if a
parishioner agrees that substantial redevelopment is needed, then there is a
high chance that the same parishioner will agree that we should be getting on
with it. And vice versa!
4.3.8. Some
comments indicate that there are in the respondent’s view more urgent needs for
the parish, with several references to the roof and other aspects of the church
itself. It is agreed that any project for redevelopment in one area cannot
ignore needs in others, in which respect the Scoping Team recommends that the
next stage of work includes a survey of the whole of the parish’s
premises, and an assessment of likely costs.
5.
Paying One’s
Fair Share, and Fund-Raising
5.1. 193
respondents answered the question about paying one’s fair share of costs and
156 about being part of a fund-raising team.
5.2. 115
parishioners, being 60% of respondents to the Fair Share question, indicated
that Yes they were willing to contribute their fair share of costs and 78
parishioners (40% of respondents) said that No they were not.
5.2.1. Over half of
the No voters were respondents who Disagreed/Firmly Disagreed with the need for
substantial redevelopment.
5.2.2. Some
comments referred to substantial commitments to providing support to other
causes (including St James’ Primary School). Other comments expressed doubts
about us raising money to spend ‘on ourselves’ when there are so many other
causes we should be supporting.
5.2.2.1.
It is quite proper of
course that parishioners should have charitable and other causes they support.
5.2.3. Looking at
some of the comments made by the No respondents, it is clear that a number were
motivated by the thought that a ‘fair share’ would be more than they could
afford. Such worries have to be recognized (and for families in a difficult
position, their ‘fair share’ of any costs would be substantially influenced on
this account). However, it is probably
appropriate to recognise that (a) not everyone in the parish is about to be
made redundant (b) the recession won’t last forever, and (c) anyone who has pledged
money on a regular basis would not be bound to continue in the event of hitting
hard times. When this issue was
discussed with MaP and PAT it was agreed that it was important to make it clear
that the concept of ‘fair share’ certainly encompassed ‘ability to contribute’,
and that any parishioners whose circumstances changed would be free and indeed
expected to adjust accordingly any contributions they were making.
5.2.4. It is likely
that the major part of the funding of any substantial development will come
from donations from parishioners. The survey does not seem to have elicited, at
least as at the present time (see 5.4 below), sufficient financial widespread
support for providing such donations.
5.2.4.1.
But perhaps, in advance of specific proposals, it is
unrealistic to expect to see any stronger willingness to provide financial
support than that which has emerged.
5.3. For the
question about willingness to be part of a Fund-Raising Team the percentages
were reversed – 40% said Yes and 60% said No.
5.3.1. Only 37% of
the No’s were respondents who Disagreed/Firmly Disagreed with the need for
substantial redevelopment. In other words there was quite a strong No vote
among parishioners who agreed with (or were not sure about) the need for
substantial redevelopment. How should this be interpreted? It may simply be
that, for a significant number of parishioners, ‘fund-raising’ is not their
thing. But it may be that the 60% No voters
would not want to organise fund-raising while still being willing to
support events. A finding that 40% of
respondents were willing to be actively involved in organising fund-raising
would be quite positive for the parish. Some further enquiry seems needed in
this area.
5.4. As can be seen
from the height of the columns in 5.2, about 60 of the 251 respondents to the
survey declined to respond to the question about Fair Share and nearly 100 to
the question on Fund-Raising. Taken together with the number who responded No
to one or both questions, this points to a high proportion of respondents who
are unwilling, at least at this point, to
indicate a preparedness to engage in the matter of paying for a redevelopment.
And then there is the majority of parishioners who did not complete a survey
form at all. The message of the survey must be that presently there is
insufficient clearly stated willingness to meet the costs of a major project to
feel confident that the parish is definitely willing to proceed. But the
response is not at all so negative as to say to the parish that we should stop
further work right now.
5.5. Other points
about fund-raising made in the survey and at MaP/PAT included:
5.5.1. The parish
is frequently very generous in responding to special appeals. It should not be
assumed that this would not be the case if a significant redevelopment project
is decided upon.
5.5.2. The services
of a professional fundraiser should be considered.
5.5.3. The
availability of grants should be considered.
5.5.4. Different
ways of giving should be explored. Gift Aid is one such. Some employers offer
matched giving to charitable causes. It is possible that the parish might
benefit from bequests, and other sources of income as yet unconsidered.
5.5.5. There is
though concern that if enhanced giving is encouraged for the parish then other
giving may suffer. This could even include support for parish activities,
eg the uniformed groups.
6.
Rating
Existing Aspects of the Hall/Centre in Serving Parish Needs
6.1. 
The
following chart contains much information, but summarises quite well the
responses to this question.
6.2. The height
of each column indicates the number of ‘votes’ for that particular answer in
relation to the relevant aspect of our Hall/Centre.
6.2.1. Please note
that ‘Don’t Know’ votes have been excluded. So where the height of a set of
columns is low overall, eg for Storage, this simply indicates that fewer
parishioners felt in a position to comment.
6.3. Where the
orange and blue columns predominate, the parish is saying it is pretty happy
with the state of that aspect of the Hall/Centre. Where however the mauve
column is significant the feelings are rather grudging, and significant heights
to the red and green columns show a substantial degree of unhappiness.
6.4. Thus the
most criticised aspect of the Hall/Centre is the Toilets, with 109 respondents
(about 55% of those voting) rating them Poor or Very Poor. Significant
unhappiness was also shown with Storage and Meeting Rooms, though fewer
respondents expressed a view on these aspects. The Kitchen facilities also got
a rather poor rating.
6.5. The most
strongly positive vote was for Accessibility from the church. The Scoping Team
was initially rather surprised at this. After all, to get from church to hall
involves either making our way down a narrow and often rather dark corridor, or
making one’s way round the car park. We would welcome feedback from
parishioners on the thinking behind this particular ‘voting’.
6.6. An
alternative way of summarising this information is to calculate the weighted
average of each score, where a Very good vote carries 1 point, Good 2, Fair 3,
etc. This produces the following ratings table, which also shows the number of
votes cast in each case, and sorts the facilities into order of rating:
|
Facility |
Responses |
Average
rating |
Comment |
|
Accessibility |
216 |
2.6 |
Fair to
Good |
|
Hall |
209 |
2.8 |
Close to
Fair |
|
Bar |
180 |
2.9 |
Close to
Fair |
|
Sacristies |
108 |
3.1 |
Close to
Fair |
|
Stage |
179 |
3.2 |
Close to
Fair |
|
Kitchen |
180 |
3.3 |
Fair to
Poor |
|
Meeting
Rooms |
120 |
3.4 |
Fair to
Poor |
|
Storage |
87 |
3.6 |
Fair to
Poor |
|
Toilets |
200 |
3.6 |
Fair to
Poor |
|
Overall |
193 |
3.1 |
Close to
Fair |
6.7. The survey
form allowed for other aspects to be mentioned. Most were critical (though
Table Football and Facilities for Scouts each got a Good vote, and Access from
the Car Park a Very Good). 7 write-ins referred to various aspects of Overall
Appearance/ Décor/Light with a mix of Poor and Very Poor ratings., and 2
further Very Poor’s for Cleanliness. 4 write-ins on Furniture got votes ranging
from Fair to Very Poor, though one respondent excluded chairs from his/her
criticism. Various other points were made, which will be available to inform
future work on developing specifications for future development (if any) of the
Hall/Centre.
6.8. Several
write-in comments questioned our need for a Stage, with the facility to ‘build’
a temporary Stage when needed being suggested as a desirable alternative to a
dedicated Stage. This could allow then
for the footprint of the present Stage (and possibly the room behind), in
conjunction with suitable partitioning, to be useable both as a separate room
and as an extension of the main Hall.
6.9. Overall, as
might have been expected, detailed comments on the facilities gave a consistent
picture to that from the earlier question on whether some substantial
redevelopment was needed.
7.
What Current
Uses of Hall/Centre are Important to Parishioners?
7.1. 
The
following chart summarises responses to this question.
7.2. The orange
and blue columns show the numbers of uses which are considered Very Important
or Important, and the use of the Hall/Centre as a facility for our Young People
is clearly given a very high priority.
7.3. The other
use where the greatest number of ratings was Very Important was the Pre-School.
7.4. Parish
meetings of various sorts, whether of the whole parish, of Groups and
Committees or of coming together after Mass, were all rated highly.
7.5. The uses of
the Hall/Centre as an Activity Space or for Outreach Events were less highly
rated. (There may have been uncertainty as to what Outreach events might
comprise, given the much lower numbers giving an answer to this question.)
7.6. The greatest
number of Not Important votes went to Revenue Raising, though this also got
substantial numbers of Very Important and Important votes, perhaps reflecting
some uncertainty as to our need for gaining revenue through use of the
Hall/Centre. One comment possibly represents a commonly held view, viz "Not at expense of parishioners e.g.
uniformed groups etc should be given priority."
7.7. As for the
previous question, the following table is an alternative way of summarising
this information. Please note that there are only four ratings possible here (1
= Very Important, 2 = Important, 3 = Nice to Have and 4 = Not Important), so
the Average Ratings are not in any sense comparable to those in 6.6 above.
|
Use |
Responses |
Average
Rating |
Comment |
|
Youth
Centre |
207 |
1.6 |
V Important
to Important |
|
Parish
meetings & social events |
214 |
1.8 |
Important |
|
Pre-School |
194 |
2.0 |
Important |
|
Parish
Group & Committee meetings |
193 |
2.0 |
Important |
|
Coming
together after Mass |
218 |
2.0 |
Important |
|
Other
social events, including bar |
206 |
2.2 |
Important |
|
Revenue
raising |
202 |
2.4 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Outreach
events |
138 |
2.4 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Activity
space |
203 |
2.6 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
7.8. There were
only three ‘other’ entries, two of which simply indicated that the respondent
knew of no other use and one of which related to a form of Outreach event.
7.9. Other
comments were generally by way of emphasising the respondent’s views on
particular uses. Several comments related to the Pre-School, which are picked
up in section 10 under Group responses to the survey.
8.
Possible
Future Uses for a Substantially Redeveloped Hall/Social Centre
8.1. The
following chart summarises responses to this question:-
8.2. 
The
following table summarises the results in the alternative way, again in order
of rating, where a Very Important vote is weighted 1, … and Not Important is weighted 4:
|
Feature/Use |
Responses |
Average
Rating |
Comment |
|
Youth
Groups |
206 |
1.9 |
Important |
|
Modern
Kitchen Facilities |
206 |
2.2 |
Important |
|
Environmentally
Friendly |
196 |
2.3 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Comfortable
social areas |
202 |
2.3 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Modern
meeting/prayer rooms |
193 |
2.5 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Centre for
Community |
201 |
2.6 |
Important
to Nice to Have |
|
Drop-in
Centre |
180 |
2.9 |
Nice to
Have |
|
Reception
area linking to church |
203 |
2.9 |
Nice to
Have |
|
Integrate
Parish Office |
184 |
3.0 |
Nice to
Have |
8.3. As with the
previous ‘existing uses’ question, the responses on possible features/uses
reflect the parish’s clear priority to serving our young people.
8.4. Modern
kitchen facilities are regarded as Important. However the ideas of a Drop-in
Centre, of Linking the Church and a Reception Area and of Integrating the
Parish Office into the Centre received ‘votes’ very much concentrated in the
Nice to Have and the Not Important categories (but see section 11.3 below).
8.5. A range of
Other possibilities or matters to be considered was suggested. These included
provision of other facilities to enhance its social use by our young people and
others, including table-tennis and the facility to show films. The need to take
security seriously was referred to in several different ways. And other matters
were extensions of features mentioned in the list, such as energy
consumption/minimising maintenance/improving natural light/access to the
garden.
8.6. As an
alternative to indicating support for possible features/uses of a redeveloped
Hall/Centre, respondents who opposed the idea of redeveloping could indicate
their reasons.
8.6.1. Of the 33
who Disagreed with the need for redevelopment, 29 gave their reasons, and of
the 18 who Firmly Disagreed with the need for redevelopment, 15 gave their
reasons. The frequency of citing the suggested reasons was as follows:
|
Attitude
to need for substantial redevelopment |
Hall used
to be our church – should be preserved |
We should
not be spending a large sum of money |
We should
be content to use what we have |
|
Disagree |
8/29 |
26/29 |
15/29 |
|
Firmly
Disagree |
8/15 |
14/15 |
9/15 |
8.6.2. It seems
clear that the major objection to significant redevelopment is cost, coupled
with an instinct for some frugality.
8.6.3. This seems
to be a very significant point. The desire to avoid saddling the parish with a
large debt is repeated many times in the survey returns, and by no means only
among those who disagreed with the need for significant redevelopment.
8.6.4. In relation
to the third suggested reason, several of the comments added words to the
effect that, in using what we have, there still needed to be some
refurbishment (but short of what the respondent would class as a major
expenditure).
9.
Opportunities
and Concerns
9.1. This
question gave respondents the opportunity to suggest particular Opportunities
and/or Concerns relating to a substantial development. Because these were
written in, summary is a somewhat objective effort. There is no substitute for
reading through the comments.
9.2. 132
Opportunities were written in.
9.2.1. Of these,
around 50 can be read as relating in one way or another to improvement of
facilities including both updating existing facilities and introducing others,
either generally or on behalf of specific group eg young people.
9.2.2. About 30 relate
in various ways to enabling us to come together better as a community,
9.2.3. with another
10 or so talking about us being able better to reach out to the wider
community.
9.2.4. About
another 10 mention opportunities for earning revenue for the parish,
9.2.5. with nearly
a further 10 on various ways we can be greener/use resources more effectively.
9.2.6. Finally, a
number of other thoughts relate to such diverse suggestions as the opportunity
to make use of parish skills, the thought we might build above the Hall or out
into the garden, to the benefits of integrating the parish office and to a
preference for a temporary stage rather than our permanent one.
9.3. 155 Concerns
were written in.
9.3.1. Of these,
about 65 related to costs in various ways – clearly the major area of concern.
9.3.2. About 25
concerns related to disruption to parish activities during the period of
refurbishment.
9.3.3. About 10
concerns were to do with post-redevelopment needs for maintenance, security,
possibly caretaker et al.
9.3.3.1.
The caretaker/cleaner issue May well be something the
parish should be addressing anyway.
9.3.4. About 20
responses were in the nature of concerns or questions as to broader dangers in
undertaking a major redevelopment; the reasons ranged from concerns that it may
lead us to take our eye off the more important area of our spiritual
development as a community through to concerns that we might lose our
collective character as a Catholic community
9.3.5. Other
concerns ranged fairly widely, and all can be read on the SurveyMonkey site –
see 1.1.2 above.
10. Group Responses
10.1.
In addition to the Part A and Part B forms which went
to parishioners, a Part C survey form was developed for Groups which use the
Hall/Social Centre. 22 Part C forms were
delivered to ‘group leaders’, 15 were returned and one Group was approached on
an interview basis. Of the 7 not returned, it will of course be open to such
Groups to supply views in any subsequent stages, if the parish decides to go
ahead with further work.
10.1.1. The 15
Groups making returns were as follows:
|
|
Abbrev used in text |
|
Bar/Coffee Club |
Bar |
|
Brownies & Rainbows |
Brownies |
|
Catenians |
No references |
|
Catholic Women's League |
CWL |
|
Children's Liturgy Group |
CLG |
|
Firm Believers |
Exercisers |
|
Justice & Peace |
J&P |
|
Knights of St Columba |
KSC |
|
|
MaP |
|
Parent & Toddler |
P&T |
|
Parish Library |
Library |
|
Sequence Dancing |
Dancers |
|
Uniformed Groups - Scouts, Cubs,
Beavers |
Scouts |
|
Welcomers |
Welcomers |
|
Youth Groups (Senior & Junior) |
Youth |
10.1.2. The
Pre-School was approached differently because the standard form would not have
been appropriate to their situation. A
meeting was held between Mary Hutchinson and Roger Wright, and extracts from
that meeting are summarised in the section 10.15 below.
10.2.
The Groups were asked the same initial questions as
individual parishioners as to whether they agreed that the Hall/Social Centre
was in need of substantial redevelopment and whether now was a good time to do
it. The spread and average level of views was very similar to that for
individual parishioners, shading slightly more in favour of the need for
redevelopment and now being the right time.
10.3.
The remaining questions were ‘open’ questions, ie
Groups were asked to provide written-in answers rather than tick pre-suggested
responses. The following sections work through these questions.
10.4.
“Does the
Group use the Hall/Social Centre? If so,
please describe which parts (Hall? Kitchen, Bar, Other Rooms?), how often and
in what numbers.”
10.4.1. From the
descriptions and numbers provided, the sizes of the 15 groups were categorised
as: 7 large, 4 medium, 2 small and 2 tiny.
11 are regular users, 3 infrequent and 1 unclassified.
10.4.2. 13 groups
stated that they use the hall; 2 use the small hall, 9 use the kitchen (2
occasionally), 3 use the bar (2 occasionally).
Most, but not all, use the toilets!
10.5.
“Does the
Group ever use the Stage? If so, for
what purpose?”
10.5.1. Occasional
use is made of the stage, but not necessarily for conventional purposes. The P&T stores its toys there because
they lack sufficient alternative space.
The Youth, KSC, Scouts and CWL use it occasionally for
entertainment. There is a feeling that a
portable stage would be more sensible.
The Scouts in particular would like it removed, the space combined with
the Green Room and the new area divided from the Hall by a retractable
partition.
10.6.
“What
storage facilities in the Hall/Social Centre does the Group have?”
10.6.1. Most of the
groups having a requirement for storage are just about managing, but they would
all like larger and more convenient facilities.
These currently consist of small corners of odd rooms, cupboards, and
the stage. The Scouts seem to be
reasonably well endowed because of the Den, although access up the spiral
staircase is poor. The Youth have
problems storing their table tennis and snooker equipment. Sadly we haven’t been told how the Guides are
coping.
10.7.
“It has been
suggested that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of some fairly substantial
redevelopment. What best describes your
group's opinion at the present stage?”
10.7.1. Although
this was posed as a closed question, two comments were written in here and
associated comments made in various other places. The Scouts and Dancers are strongly opposed
to any major re-development, fearing that losing use of the Hall would endanger
the existence of their groups altogether.
The Bar believes some changes are desirable and CLG suggests the whole
complex should be rebuilt. Two of the
small groups suggested it was good to discuss the idea and cost options. It seems fair to say that from the comments
made, the main reason for opposition, apart from cost, is the concern about
losing use of the Hall for a lengthy period.
10.8.
“What
aspects of the Hall/Social Centre does the group consider should be improved as
a priority?”
10.8.1. Almost
without exception every group claiming to use them would like substantial
improvements to the toilets. Most groups
mention that the kitchen should be improved: one suggesting at least a deep
clean, another that there is a smell of gas, and three recommending a complete
redesign so that its use can be extended.
10.8.2. Some groups
mention the unattractiveness of the hall and its poor lighting. Another has problems with access; having to
bother Frank Simon each week for entry is not desirable.
10.8.3. The Scouts
requested that other users should be obliged to store all their belongings
after use. This may be a reference to
the Pre-School equipment but in any case, as storage is known to be a problem,
this request is unlikely to be met in the short term.
10.9.
“If the
parish as a whole considers that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of
substantial development, does the group consider that now is a good time to be
getting on with it?”
10.9.1. The P&T
suggested there is never a good time and the parish should just get on with
it. However, the Scouts thought it would
send out the wrong message in a time of recession and the Library thought it
might be prudent to wait for an economic upturn. The overall feeling (from 4 groups) was that
this is a good time to think and plan for such a development.
10.10.
“If a
substantial development were to take place, what facilities would the group:
Need, Want, Like?”
10.10.1.
It wasn’t possible to attribute most of the replies to
the categories listed, and so the suggestions have been considered as general
needs. Neither is there a general trend
for what improvements are required except for better toilet facilities. The Dancers and Exercisers obviously need a
good, clean floor and a reliable ambient temperature. They and also CLG comment on the need for
proper cleaning and general caretaking improvements. Brownies and Youth groups want better
storage. CLG would like a warm, bright
space, with moveable child friendly furniture plus decent audio visual
equipment. The groups which are more
meeting/discussion orientated (J&P, MaP, KSC) ask for rooms of a more suitable
size. Welcomers and KSC suggest that a
major kitchen refit should be carried out.
Welcomers want this so parish meals (such as lunch club for the elderly)
could be provided. The CWL would want a
hand in the design of any kitchen alterations.
The library would be more accessible if set up in new surroundings and
this could be done in a meeting room of a suitable size.
10.10.2.
The most radical proposal is to be found in the Scouts
submission. They wrote at length
describing their legacy and loyalty to the parish, which is not disputed of
course. Their main concern, apart from
continuity, is that the parish should not create a facility which is too nice
for them to use because of the types of activity in which they engage. This has caused problems in the past when
they had been banned from using certain areas.
Instead they would prefer to be housed in separate accommodation with
their own storage and independent access.
This is surely something which should be seriously considered, and where
possible shared with the Guiding groups.
10.11.
“If a
substantial development is undertaken there could be significant disruption to
the use of the Hall/Social Centre for some time. What particular needs does the group think it
may have during that period and how does it think it would cope?”
10.11.1.
This is the main cause of concern for the large and
established groups. The CWL states that
it couldn’t cope, using, as it states, all facilities within the existing
centre. The Dancers and Scout groups
conclude that they would be forced to close, or move completely and not return. Availability of the hall after Sunday Masses
is essential in the view of the Bar. All
the other groups believe they would find ways round such difficulties with some
minor assistance and adjustments to routine.
CLG and P&T would probably suspend their activities for the period
of re-development.
10.12.
“Without any
commitment at the present stage, would the group be willing to play its part in
raising funds for a redevelopment of the Hall/Social Centre if the parish as a
whole agreed that this was something that should be done?”
10.12.1.
All groups are sympathetic to this idea, although
important caveats have been noted. The
CWL for example would assist with fund-raising for hall refurbishment but not a
rebuild. Brownies and Scouts rightly
point out that the burden would fall on the same constituency of givers. P&T and KSC were the most enthusiastic on
this subject. The Bar suggested that
prices could be increased to help but were concerned about how to ring fence
such contributions. The Dancers already
make a valuable donation to parish funds of Ł120 for each month it operates.
10.13.
“Does the
group believe that that this questionnaire has given it sufficient scope to put
its point of view at this (early) stage?
If not, what more would it like to add?”
10.13.1.
9 of the 15 respondents said yes, the others making no
indication one way or the other.
10.14.
Dancers and Scouts submitted extensive additional
comments. These were entered in an extra
comment box on Survey Monkey, called “Major additional commentary”. Many of their points have been incorporated
above, however, the following did not conveniently fit the questions but are
well worth recording here.
10.14.1.
Scouts This response was phrased in quite
strong terms. The Group does not wish to
see the building “razed to the ground” but would support refurbishment. As well as the belief that a rebuild would
have a serious, if not catastrophic, impact on their operation, they are
sceptical about how much backing the parish would give to such a scheme. In their words “the congregation as a whole
is only committed to attending Mass on Sunday” and they believe that initial
enthusiasm would quickly wane and the fund raising burden then fall on the
“usual suspects”. They are also clearly
unhappy about other hall users not putting things away and appear to link this
in saying that the parish does not make full use of the facilities.
As reported above, their main concern is losing their Friday night
sessions either temporarily or even permanently. They worry that if the centre is radically
improved, and bookings increase as a result, that they will lose out.
10.14.2.
Dancers This comprehensive response was
prepared by Denis Nelligan, and he is concerned both for his group and also the
parish. This is clearly a very
successful weekly event which is enjoyed by a large number of parishioners as
well as some from at least one other Petts Wood church. It is well-managed financially, pays its way
and even donates a decent profit to the parish.
Denis would not like the venture disrupted in any way, believing that if
the hall was unavailable for a prolonged period then it would go elsewhere and
not return.
He is also concerned that the parish might be saddled with a large debt
for years to come. However, he would
support the raising of a separate cash building fund (target of Ł200,000) and
the preparation of plans and costs.
10.15.
St James’ Pre-School
10.15.1.
The Pre-School is clearly valued by the parish. This
shows in the very positive ‘rating’ it achieved as one of the current uses (see
7.1 above) where it received the second-highest Very Important ‘vote’.
10.15.2.
The present situation for the Pre-School is
unsatisfactory, due to the state of the premises which leaves a great deal to
be desired.
10.15.3.
In particular the toilets and kitchen come in for
fierce criticism by staff and parents alike. The toilets are left in a poor
state after weekends and after mid-week bookings, with staff having to clean
and tidy throughout before children arrive.
10.15.4.
Storage is a major problem.
10.15.5.
It is very unsatisfactory for the Pre-School when
functions essential for parish life (eg funeral receptions) take place during
school times. This is a prime example of the Pre-School’s lack of independence
caused by the Social Centre’s inflexible space.
10.15.6.
The generally poor facilities give concerns that staff
will leave. They are a marvellous bunch of people who achieve great results
despite all the obstacles.
10.15.7.
In the light of this situation, management and staff
have been thinking about the Pre-School's future, and the prospect of major
redevelopment of the Social Centre is very helpful. Any advice that can be
provided about the possibility of dedicated facilities (as an alternative to
the present situation of shared facilities) for the Pre-School within the
Centre would be very welcome.
11. Other Comments
11.1.
As and when we have a team drawing up
specifications/priorities, even simply for the purpose of getting estimates,
they would benefit from trawling through the various comments for a large
number of thoughtful suggestions – see 1.2.2.
11.2.
Where the survey seems to have had rather limited
success is in eliciting ‘vision’ for
what a redeveloped Centre might enable us to do, outside things we already do.
Perhaps this was a consequence of us promoting the questionnaire as being quick
and easy to complete.
11.2.1. It is maybe
no coincidence that of the possible options offered in question 8 (see section 8 above), the three that
received the least support were those that were furthest from our present
situation. Maybe there is genuinely no enthusiasm in the parish for integrating
the parish office into the Centre, having a reception area linking the entrance
to the church with the Hall/Social Centre, or possibly offering a Drop-in
Centre. But maybe it is just that such ideas, and others, need more time to gel
and attract support.
11.2.2. Perhaps realistically it is only after the
introduction of better facilities that we would get a widespread enthusiasm for
new things among parish groups and parishioners.
11.2.3. But it may
well be fruitful, a little further along the track, to institute some
brain-storming exercises. Perhaps have two or more groups meeting
simultaneously, but independently, sharing some features to encourage
cross-fertilisation of ideas and community.
Perhaps involve outside users at the same time, to show that as
Catholics we are interested in our local community and can serve it in a
positive way. There are many techniques, quite common within business and other
organisations, for generating vision.
11.2.4. We do though
note the Welcomers’ proposal for a lunch club and the Library’s suggestion to
relocate. It has also been pointed out, on behalf of the Children’s Liturgy
Group, how although we meet a number of the needs of our children we are less
successful when they move into their teen years. Part of an addressing of this
challenge might be a Young Teens liturgy group. But presently this is inhibited
by lack of suitable space which could be separated off.
12. Overall Comments and Conclusions
12.1.
There seems to be strong agreement that the present
state of the Hall/Social Centre is unsatisfactory. We have significantly over
60% of respondents to our survey, including parish groups, saying they agree
with the proposition that significant redevelopment is needed. Considering that
we have set out no specifics as to what form such redevelopment might take,
this is an impressive number. A further group of parishioners are Not Sure. But
even among the 20% who Disagree or Firmly Disagree with the proposition for
substantial redevelopment there were a number of written-in comments favouring
at least some refurbishment.
12.2.
It is instructive to note that among those who
Disagreed with the proposition (Firmly or otherwise) the predominant reason was
cost. This concern about cost is one that comes through strongly overall. It is
expressed as either a concern that in these difficult economic times our
parishioners will not be in a position to respond to requests to increase their
giving, or that we might saddle ourselves as a community with an enormous debt.
12.3.
Cost is clearly a major issue.
12.3.1. On the one
hand, we had 60% of those responding to the relevant question saying they would
be prepared to pay their fair share, which at a stage when no specific
proposals have been produced is encouraging. Also 40 % of those who responded
to the next question said they would be willing to be part of a fund-raising
team.
12.3.2. But it has
to be noted that nearly a quarter of respondents chose not to respond to the
‘fair share’ question at all. In all, less than half of respondents to the
survey said they would be prepared to pay their fair share of the costs. And
(we estimate) over 60% of parishioners did not submit a survey form. Also the
wish to avoid saddling the parish with a major debt was a strong theme in many
comments.
12.3.2.1.
Some confusion exists among a number of parishioners
as to what might be a ‘fair share’. Clearly ‘fair’ in this context should be a
matter of conscience for the individual parishioner, after thought and prayer.
But it would seem that there could be value in providing some thoughts and
advice to parishioners, as an aid to reflection.
12.3.2.2.
There may even be a case for opening more generally
with parishioners the matter of what should be a proper level of giving to the
parish.
12.3.3. A number of
written-in comments made it clear that there could be worry, if a parishioner’s
circumstances changed (eg redundancy) about being able to continue with a
‘promised’ level of donations. It needs to be made crystal clear that no
‘promise’ to make donations will in any sense be binding. It will always be at
the individual’s discretion whether to continue a level of support to (say) a
Building Fund.
12.4.
Coupled with clear expressions of concern about cost,
one can detect in a number of responses a sense of preference for us being
frugal, coming both from the conditions of the time and what is felt appropriate
for a community such as ours.
12.4.1. This is a
perplexing issue when it comes to interpreting what this might mean in
practice. Our faith of course is not dependent on whether we have a smart new
church or an old dark Victorian one, and it is easy to say we do not want
anything ‘unnecessarily fancy’. But what does this mean? It surely does not
mean we go for cheapest construction materials, irrespective of quality and
costs of longer-term maintenance.
12.4.2. And we have
said that we want our young parishioners to be catered for. Like it or not, we
are in some senses at least ‘competing’ with other attractions of modern life.
12.4.3. Perhaps what
it means is that in any redevelopment we do we need a persistent and constant
attention to principles of good stewardship, with a sense of responsibility
that when we spend the parish’s money we are doing so in competition with all
the causes which, as a Christian community, we could be supporting.
12.5.
There is quite a strong body of opinion that we should
go for refurbishment rather than complete rebuild.
12.5.1. See however
the comment in 4.3.5.2, where it is remarked that this view would seem to be
predicated on the assumption that rebuild is necessarily more expensive.
12.6.
A “refurbishment vs rebuild” debate, together with the
expressions of concern in the survey at possible expenditure needed on our
church, suggests that we need a clearer picture than we presently have as to
the real state of our Hall/Social Centre, of the church and indeed also the
presbytery. The Scoping Team proposes that we obtain suitable building
surveyor/ engineer’s advice on the state of our premises, both in themselves in
the context of the costs the parish might be facing anyway within the next 10
(say) years and in their suitability for redevelopment? Until we have such
advice we do not know what we are facing in terms of calls on our collective
purse, and what the feasibility is of saying we refurbish/adapt what we
presently have rather than rebuild.
12.7.
The Scoping Team also proposes that we seek from a
suitably qualified architect suggestions and costings, including outline
drawings, as to possible development options for our Hall/Social Centre.
12.7.1. The purpose
of developing such options would be to provide the parish with a much clearer
picture of choices which are available to us and of the order of magnitude of
their cost.
12.7.2. It is
suggested that three choices be looked at, which can be described as moderate
redevelopment, substantial redevelopment and rebuild. Work will be needed by a
Specification Team to agree the main parameters of each of these options,
though we would expect our chosen surveyor to have suggestions. In developing
these parameters, the Specification Team should have careful regard to the
opinions of the parish as expressed in the survey, including particularly the
importance the parish places on supporting our young people.
12.7.3. Work on
preparation of these options can proceed in parallel with the survey of our
premises –as described above in12.6.
12.8.
The Scoping Team is firmly of the view that the
results of the survey give a mandate for the exploratory work described in 12.6
and 12.7. But it wishes to make it clear that it does not regard such work as
representing any form of pre-commitment to undertake any particular project
(other than, at a minimum and in the absence of more elaborate work,
year-to-year maintenance and repair).
12.8.1. The cost of
such work would not be small. Our best present estimate, based in part on early
exploratory discussions with an architect who is the husband of a parishioner,
is that it could be in the order of Ł10,000. The parish has sufficient funds
with the diocese to cover such a cost.
12.8.2. The Scoping
Team would intend to obtain the support of the Finance Committee before
committing this sum. The overall principle the Scoping Team would follow in
proposing the parish incur such cost would be that the cost was both necessary
and sufficient. We would intend to discuss with the Finance Committee how best
to achieve good value for the parish’s money, including considering whether to
get competitive quotes. (However for work such as this, we need to be more
concerned about the quality of the advice we get rather than simply its cost.)
12.9.
Following production of the work outlined in 12.6 and
12.7, there would be a process of further consultation with the parish. Coupled
with discussion on possibilities would need to be serious debate on what the
parish can realistically raise in funds.
12.9.1. The Scoping
Team proposes that we resolve as a community that we will not embark on serious
expenditure until we have saved at least 75% of what we intend to spend. (NB
this is a diocesan requirement for Anglican parishes, which we would be wise to
consider adopting ourselves.)
The Scoping
Team (Fr Bryan, Austin Barradell, Chris Hairs and Roger Wright)
28th
September 2009
A copy is
attached below of the survey forms. These consist of the basic Part A which
includes the guidance notes for completing the survey, Part B with more
detailed questions and Part C for Groups which use the Hall.
WHAT
DO YOU THINK? Development of St James’
Hall/Social Centre
What Am I Being Asked To Do?
The Questionnaire overleaf and attached asks for
your views on the current and future use of the Hall/Social Centre. Please
think about the questions, give your responses and then
return
the questionnaire to the box in the lobby during June.
Your answers matter
– please take a few minutes to complete as much of the Questionnaire as you
have time for.
Part
A overleaf includes the most important questions: do you agree that now is a
good time to redevelop our Hall/Social Centre, and would you be prepared to
play your part in helping pay for the work? Please, please at least complete Part A.
If
you would like to provide thoughts on more detailed aspects, then we would
welcome your responses to the attached Part B also.
All
responses will be treated in confidence. The Scoping Team may like to contact a
few parishioners to discuss ideas that may arise. If you would be willing to be
contacted, please include your contact details at the end.
But What’s
It all About?
“Should we be redeveloping our Hall/Social
Centre (including the sacristy, etc)?”
·
Our existing premises
are less than ideal in a number of respects, and yearly maintenance costs are
likely to mount.
·
A number of neighbouring
Christian parishes have redeveloped their own premises, so there is local
experience from which we could benefit.
·
It is approaching some
50 years since what was the old church became our Social Centre when the
existing church was opened. Now seems a
good time to consider redevelopment.
·
Some initial discussion
was opened at the Parish Forum meeting on 10th March.
This
questionnaire is an important step in starting to explore whether redevelopment
of our Hall/Social Centre is the right thing for us to be doing at this time.
What Next?
1. The Scoping Team will examine and summarise the questionnaires.
2. The Mission and Planning Group will consider how our mission (calling
from God) as a parish should influence any decision on a development.
3. If the responses point to further exploration of practical alternatives,
the Scoping Team will draw up a
provisional architectural brief, so that an architect can advise on ways we
might realise our requirements, including:
a.
Refurbishing our
existing Social Centre
b.
Building and equipping a
new structure
c.
A mix of the two
scenarios
4. The architect will also be asked to comment on the repercussions of
doing nothing (apart from making general repairs).
5. The results of all the above will be presented to a Parish Forum
assembled to address this single issue.
Thank You – The
Scoping Team.
(Father Bryan, Austin Barradell, Chris Hairs, Roger
Wright, Andrew Dalgleish)
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Part A
1
How would you describe yourself
(you may circle more than one category):
a. Parishioner of St James
b. Regular user of the Hall/Social Centre
c. Occasional user of the Hall/Social Centre
d. User of the Hall/Social Centre for events not directly attached to the
church (e.g. birthday parties, receptions, pre-school etc)
2
It has been suggested
that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of some fairly substantial
redevelopment. What best describes your opinion at the present stage?
a. Firmly agree;
b. Agree;
c. Not sure;
d. Don’t agree;
e. Firmly disagree.
3
If the parish as a whole
considers that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of substantial development, is
now a good time to be getting on with it?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not sure
4
A suitable development
could be very exciting and helpful for the parish. But any development work,
including maintenance of the existing plant, will incur a cost and require a significant
effort from all in the Parish. Are you prepared to play your part by:
a. Contributing your fair share of the costs? Yes/No
b. Being part of a fund-raising team? Yes/No
c. Other – suggestions welcome.
[We don’t yet have any costs. But it’s clear that a development would need
significantly more than our current offertory collections provide. For a project to succeed it will have to
attract enthusiastic financial support and fund-raising from the Parish as a
whole. We need an honest view as to whether the Parish has that enthusiasm.]
5
Do you wish to add any
comments?
Thank you very much for completing the
questionnaire – Part A. Please post it in the box in the lobby at the back of
church.
If you would like to contribute further thoughts,
why not look through Part B. Even if you only wanted to comment on one or two
questions, your input would be much appreciated.
But please be sure that the questionnaire is returned by the end of
June.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Part B
6
Please rate how good you
think existing aspects of the Hall/Social Centre are in serving parish needs:
1= Very Good 2= Good
3 = Fair 4 = Poor 5 = Very Poor
|
Accessibility from the
Church |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
The Hall |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Kitchen Facilities |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Bar Facility |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Toilets |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Stage |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Meeting Rooms |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Sacristies (Priest’s
and Servers’) |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Storage |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
Other aspects? (please
write
in) |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t
Know 1
2 3 4
5 Don’t
Know 1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
|
My overall feeling |
1
2 3 4
5 Don’t Know |
7
What current uses of our
Hall/Social Centre are important to you?
1 = Very Important 2 = Important 3 = Nice to Have 4 = Not Important.
|
Coming together after
Mass |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Parish Meetings and
Social Events - Hall |
1 2
3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Other Social Events
including Bar |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Parish Group and
Committee meetings |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Youth Centre
(Uniformed groups, Youth Groups, Parent/Toddler, Children’s Liturgy) |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Outreach Events |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Activity Space (e.g.
dancing, indoor sports, keep-fit) |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Pre-school |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Revenue raising (as a
venue for hiring out) |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Other aspects? (please
write
in) |
1
2 3 4 Don’t Know 1
2 3 4 Don’t Know 1
2 3 4 Don’t Know |
8
Please give your views
on options for possible future features/uses for a substantially redeveloped
Hall/Social Centre.
1 = Very Important; 2 =
Important; 3 = Nice to Have; 4 = Not Important.
|
Modern meeting / prayer rooms |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Reception area linking entrance to church with
Hall/Social Centre |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Integration of parish and priest’s offices into
Centre |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Meeting place for Catholic and other youth groups |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Modern kitchen facilities |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Centre for the Community (inc fellow churches) |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Comfortable social areas (eg coffee, lunches etc) |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Drop-in centre |
1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
|
Environmentally friendly |
1 2
3 4 Don’t Know |
|
Other aspects? (please
write
in) |
1 2
3 4 Don’t Know 1 2 3
4 Don’t Know 1 2 3
4 Don’t Know |
Or if you consider we should not be undertaking a
substantial redevelopment, please indicate your reasons, e.g.:
|
The Hall used to be
our church – it should be preserved We should not be
spending a large sum of money We should be content
to use what we have Other |
|
9 There may be exciting opportunities for the Church in the community; you
may also have concerns about any change. Please identify up to three
‘opportunities’ and three ‘concerns’. Add another sheet or leave your contact
details if you can’t say here everything you need to
|
Opportunities |
Concerns |
|
|
|
10 Do you believe that this questionnaire has given you sufficient scope to
put your point of view at this (early) stage? If not, what more would you like
to add?
(optional)
Name Phone
number Email
address
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Part C
Supplementary
questionnaire for Parish Groups
Name
of Group ……………………………………………………………..
A
Does the Group use the
Hall/Social Centre? If so, please describe which parts (Hall? Kitchen, Bar,
Other Rooms?), how often and in what numbers.
B
Does the Group ever use
the Stage? If so, for what purpose?
C
What storage facilities
in the Hall/Social Centre does the Group have?
D
It has been suggested
that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of some fairly substantial
redevelopment. What best describes your group’s opinion at the present stage?
a.
Firmly agree;
b. Agree;
c. Not sure;
d. Don’t agree;
e. Firmly disagree.
E
What aspects of the
Hall/Social Centre does the group consider should be improved as a priority?
F
If the parish as a whole
considers that the Hall/Social Centre is in need of substantial development, does
the group consider that now is a good time to be getting on with it?
a.
Yes
b. No
c.
Not sure
G
If a substantial
development were to take place, what facilities would the group:
a.
Need
b. Want
c. Like to have
Please make your response to this question as
detailed as you wish.
H
If a substantial
development is undertaken there could be significant disruption to the use of
the Hall/Social Centre for some time. What particular needs does the group think
it may have during that period and how does it think it would cope?
I
Without any commitment
at the present stage, would the group be willing to play its part in raising
funds for a redevelopment of the Hall/Social Centre if the parish as a whole
agreed that this was something that should be done?
J
Does the group believe
that that this questionnaire has given it sufficient scope to put its point of
view at this (early) stage? If not, what more would it like to add?
Group contact
Name Telephone Email address