1. Those present:

Julian Arnold

Owen Clutton (Chair)

Mark Huntingford

Catherine Kimpton-Clark

Peter O’Sullivan

Roger Wright (Secretary)

Apologies for absence, mainly due to commuting problems caused by adverse weather, received from John Blighton, Matthew Byrne, Jim Callinan, Andrew Dalgleish, Rod Morrison and Colm Mather.

2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising

It was agreed to accept the notes of the last meeting and matters arising would be covered by the agenda items.  [Peter later noted that there had been an error concerning the compilation of a list of possible developments to visit.  This has been corrected in the notes published on the website.]

3. Adoption of Terms of Reference

The terms of reference were adopted and Roger emphasised the need to work within their framework and principles.  This was to avoid overlaps with other teams and also so the Scoping Team could be confident of what to expect from our Team.

4. Collection of existing building data and modelling

Catherine reported that she had completed ⅔ of her internal survey of the Social Centre.  The data is being used to assemble a detailed electronic plan (using AutoCAD?) of all the spaces (excluding the church itself).  This 2-D model will be very useful to the Team during the drafting of an architect’s brief.  The model will also form part of the information passed to the architect and should reduce the cost of producing the outline schemes.  Catherine suggested that the Team should undertake a group site visit; she had learnt a lot from the survey exercise and everyone should be similarly acquainted with the layout and state of the premises.  There was some discussion about what the architect’s brief should consist of.  The Team’s objective will be complete when the architect’s proposals have been presented to the parish.  It will then be the job of the Scoping Team to devise a decision-making process in which the parish can participate.

Catherine remarked that her closer than usual examination of the premises revealed that it is in a generally poor state.  She reported a strong smell of gas in the kitchen and everyone agreed that the Property Committee should have this checked as a matter of urgency.  Roger also noted that there were central heating pipes at ceiling level in the kitchen which had rusted brackets.

5. Progress with Accommodation Survey

Catherine had produced a questionnaire to be used as the basis for an accommodation survey.  This would be used to interview every parish group as well as discussions with Fr Bryan, the parish administrator and other groupings in the parish.  Although there is some similarity between this document and the group survey done last summer, there is more rigour in the questions which will be put on a face to face basis.  There was discussion about how best to incorporate new ideas, including the support of Fr john Weatherill to features he had observed worked well in other developments.

The questionnaire would be given a test run as soon as the Team’s comments had been taken account of by Catherine.  The interviewing should be completed within a month and this would require assistance from several Team members.  The test run might be with the Youth Group leaders as they meet on a Saturday.  As many members of the Team as possible should be present for this (possibly in late Jan/early Feb) and it would be a good opportunity to undertake the site walkthrough.

It was agreed that the SurveyMonkey data should be moth-balled at the end of January but will be reactivated as required.

6. Visits to other church developments

As referred to above, the notes of the last meeting were not quite accurate and should have said it was John who could obtain rough costings of developments from industry sources.  Roger agreed to compile the list in conjunction with the Scoping Team (but suggestions from anyone else would be appreciated).  Andrew’s questionnaire for visiting such developments was discussed and it was agreed that this would be used as drafted for at least the first visit.

7. Project planning

During the course of the meeting, Julian updated the project plan using his laptop and the first draft assembled by Colm.  There followed a rapid development of this from suggestions made by the Team with activity times roughly estimated.  The target for the architect’s presentation to the parish was proposed as the end of June.  This would give time to allow parishioners to ask questions about the proposals and have them answered before and during the summer holidays.  The parish could then make a decision about the next stage in September.

8. Any other business

Julian would be remunerated by his employer at a nominal rate of £10 per hour for time spent on community projects of this type.  His remuneration would be passed to the fund-raising account.  He agreed to find out why certain employers were prepared to do this and report back.

9. Summary of agreed actions:

(a)     Catherine to circulate the Group Space requirements questionnaire.

(b)     All members of team to review the questionnaire and send comments to Catherine.

(c)     Julian to complete project plan vsn 1 and circulate for comment.

(d)     Catherine to complete site survey and creation of 2-D digital model.

(e)     Roger to compile list of possible church development to visit.

(f)     Roger to compile list of possible architects.

(h)     Roger to advise Property Committee on date required for condition survey delivery (possibly end of April).

(i)      Roger to arrange first group interview (Youth Groups).

(j)      Form interview group(s) and agree schedule for completion.

10. The next meeting will be on Wednesday 24th February 2010 at 8.00pm in the Church Meeting Room.

11. The meeting closed at 9.45pm.