Chair: Mr Andrew Dalgleish of the Parish’s ‘Scoping Team’.
Panel members: Mr Austin Barradell
Mr Chris Hairs
Mr Roger Wright
Fr Bryan Wells was in attendance.
1. Introduction and opening prayer
1.1 Mr Dalgleish welcomed everyone to the meeting and Fr Bryan lead the forum in an opening prayer.
1.2 Mr Dalgleish explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the outcome of the parish survey concerning the potential redevelopment of the church hall; and to decide on the next steps.
1.3 Mr Dalgleish introduced Mr Chris Hairs who would provide a presentation summarising the findings in the survey.
2. Presentation
2.1 Mr Hairs began his comprehensive presentation by confirming that a complete report on the survey results was available on the parish website; anonymised detail was available on the web tool “SurveyMonkey”, accessible via the parish website; and a leaflet summarising key issues had been provided after Mass on Sunday 4th October.
2.2. 251 individual responses had been received, together with responses on behalf of 16 groups which used the hall. The former was estimated to be about a 35% response rate.
2.3 Key findings in the survey had included e.g.:
1. agreement that the hall/social centre was unsatisfactory
2. over 60% of respondents, including parish groups, had agreed that significant redevelopment was needed.
3. there were major concerns about costs including the “fair share” notion of cost distribution and how this would be applied; and that the parish (i.e. all of us) might be saddled with a major long term debt
Mr Hairs added that, following any decision to proceed with redevelopment, the Scoping Team recommended that the parish commit to raising 75% of the projected costs prior to any building or refurbishment work being started.
3. Response to Questions and Comments from the floor
In response to questions and comments from the floor, the Scoping Team confirmed that:
1. non users had neither been questioned about nor had volunteered their reasons for not using the hall
2. “Don’t knows” had been excluded from the relevant calculations in the analysis of the survey findings
3. there was some correlation between the ratio of those who had agreed that redevelopment was needed and those who had been willing to help fund this
4. costs of any redevelopment were currently not known – the core purpose of the next stage is to fill this gap in our knowledge
5. the concept of a “fair share” of costs would be worked out further with parishioners
6. the parish had about £200,000 in savings lodged with the Archdiocese
7. there were currently no debts in the parish; but there were some liabilities in the condition of the church, and church hall, roofs and buildings
8. the preschool provided benefits as well as disadvantages; there was a mixture of views about this; and any move of it elsewhere would not be cost free
9. the costs of appointing a surveyor and an architect now, to help the parish identify the current status of its buildings and make proposals about the best use of buildings, were small in comparison with the costs of any major long term redevelopment. It would be worth spending the money in this early stage to get right the big decision of whether and what size of redevelopment to embark upon
10. there was currently no comprehensive overview of the overall condition of the parish premises
11. any necessary building repairs would have to be completed, and paid for, independently of any fundraising activities
12. a “design and build” process might help the parish to avoid any undue escalation of building costs
13. parishioners with an interest in the proposed redevelopment should please come forward and actively participate
14. the parish would liaise with other local churches, which had done redevelopments of their own, in order to learn from their experience and outcomes
4. Other comments received from the floor included:
1. while some employers do offer ‘donation-matching’ to encourage their employees to give to charity, not all employers allow such donation-matching to apply to donations to political or religious organisations
2. some visitors from other parishes were complimentary about our buildings
3. attempts to raise revenue by letting out the hall space to non-parishioners could lead to increased health and safety constraints and costs
4. priests should have discrete areas, away from their homes, for their parish work
5. raising 75% of quoted costs in advance might represent a much smaller proportion of the real costs of any proposed redevelopment unless strong discipline was maintained over making changes to specifications
6. information about how current groups would like to use the hall in future would be useful
7. parents were already being asked to raise money across a range of areas
8. can we not avoid spending £10,000 on professional reports by making use of parishioners with relevant skills?
9. we need to work through the present wide range of views, so that the whole process becomes a uniting experience for the community, enhancing our Parish Mission
10. thanks were expressed to the Scoping Team for all of their hard work
5. Next Steps
The Scoping Team, taking into account the feedback from the parish forum, would:
1. consider the points made at the forum
2. invite knowledgeable parishioners to actively participate in the next steps
3. draw on members of the group specified in 2 above, and on members of other parish groups (eg the Property Committee), to:
a) liaise with local churches which had redeveloped their own premises to learn from their experience
b) participate in the appointment of a surveyor to undertake a condition survey
c) participate in the preparation of any specifications for the appointment of an architect
d) consider what fund-raising options may be available to the parish, if a decision to proceed with a substantial project is made in due course
4. consult with the Archdiocese, seeking its support, obtaining its advice (including advice on appointment of architects and surveyors) and ascertaining its requirements for when we might be seeking its permission to proceed with any project (this is required in guidelines)
5. subject to the Archdiocese’s advice, the Scoping Team would expect to appoint an architect to draw up plans to advise on:
a) major refurbishment of the existing church hall or
b) moderate refurbishment of the existing church hall or
c) building and equipping a new structure
6. when these various pieces of work are completed, there will be further consultation with the parish as to whether to proceed with a redevelopment project and, if so, what sort of magnitude of project we should be attempting.
6. Closure of the meeting
Mr Dalgleish, and Fr Bryan, closed the meeting with thanks to those who had attended and a prayer.