Minutes of Extraordinary General Meeting held on 19 February 2013 at the Sacred Heart Church, Bilton.
Committee
Peter Langley (Chairman)
Phil Shorey
Wendy Pattinson
Anne Carrington
Terry Bradbury
Chris Malthouse
David Hicks
In addition to the committee members mentioned above there were 40 members present, as follows:
Ivan Beniston Chris Cassin John Tolbutt Ron Golby
Sue Osborne Sheila Taylor Malcolm Taylor David Reed
Claire Dixon Marion Dixon Peter Augustus Mary Kerridge
Jeff Stafford Alan Webb Judith Kleiner Nicky Cook
Richard Holland Rhona Holland Graham Clarke John Drake
Pam Southern Ken Fernie Ken Miles Peng Ward
Janet Chappell Freddie Foster Roy Deacon David Heron
Richard Hammond Ruth Hammond Liz Edwards Stuart Warne
Wendy Cress Val Wormleighton Alan Webb Ann Burrage
Jane Smith Rita Lord Dennis Angove Helen Foster
and apologies had been received from 32 others as follows:
Gerald Potts Geoffrey Lea Diana Kinch Terry Leary
Vera Iredale Peter Iredale Keith Lodge David Ewards
Michael Allman Christine Barnes Brian Richardson Connie Roberts
Paul Dorrington Maria Smyth Peggy Stone Howard Kirk
Anne Pettit Brian Phillips Patricia Downton Sidney Downton
Jean Child Cassie Malisova Petr Malis Jane Smith
Christine Cooper Betty Pickard Clive Toll Marjorie Davies
Peter Dixon David Owen Pat Wren Tony Wren
who were unable to attend the meeting.
In introducing the proposal, the Chairman said that the decision on whether to move to Cawston Village Hall was the biggest in Club’s history. If we decided in favour, it would give the club a single base for all its activities for 15 years with the potential to extend the agreement over a much longer period. If the proposal was rejected the club would continue renting the three existing venues.
The Club had been searching for suitable premises for 15 – 20 years and it was doubtful whether the club could find anything more suitable or to get a better deal.
The club was unusual in using several different venues for its bridge sessions - most of the neighbouring clubs operated from a single base. Quite apart from the practical benefits of not having to move equipment from venue to venue the proposal would give the club a brand identity that it currently lacked.
It would be convenient if one of the existing venues could meet the need for a single base but none of them met the specifications listed in Schedule 1 of the Agreement and none was able to cater for five sessions each week.
Cawston Parish Council had sought planning permission for the new Community Hall and the outcome was awaited. The hall would be an elegant, state of the art building, all at ground level and would be a vital facility for local residents. Some conditions might be attached to any planning permission granted, but they would be unlikely to change the design of the Hall or the facilities available to the club significantly. If there were significant changes, the committee would come back to the members for further advice.
The club would not have to part with any money until after planning permission had been granted. The club’s £100,000 would be an integral part of the funding for the new building, along with a similar sum the parish council were putting in. Money was also needed from other sources – it was promised, but the Parish Council still had some work to do to gather it all in. If they unexpectedly failed to do so and the Hall was not built, the Club would get its money back with interest.
The proposed facilities in the Hall would fully meet the club’s specification and requirements, which were set out in Schedule 1 and in fact the building had been designed with those needs in mind. There would be a 100 sq metre room available at the times the club required and this would be able to accommodate at least 15 tables – more than the attendance at any of the weekly sessions in the last 20 years or so. In addition there was a smaller room for possible overflow if required but the club may have to pay a bit extra for that. Parking should not be a problem because in addition to the proposed 35 spaces at the Hall, there was also plenty of parking outside the local shops and if necessary at the school.
£100,000 averaged £6,667 per annum over 15 years, whereas currently the club were paying over £8,500 per annum for the three existing venues. It was however misleading to compare the two figures directly – there were some unknowns and assumptions about utility costs, interest rates and inflation had to be made. Cawston could work out cheaper, even when the extra cost of utility bills was included, and the Club would be getting a great deal more for its money than from the existing venues, plus the priceless benefit of integrating all our sessions.
A great deal of time had been spent negotiating a draft agreement with the parish council. They would have preferred a much shorter period – 10 years had been suggested but the committee had stuck firm on 15 years. Particular thanks were due to Phil Shorey for all his efforts on this and ably supported by Sue Osborne. Both the Club and the Parish Council had taken separate legal advice during the consultation process and many changes had been made. The committee were satisfied that the proposed draft agreement was sound, fair and would safeguard the club in the unlikely event of anything going wrong. There were bound to be a few risks in investing this amount of money over a long period, but the agreement covered the Club against those. The most important safeguard of all was that the club would have two representatives on the management committee that assumed direct responsibility for the Hall as part of a newly formed Charitable Trust and that committee would be able to iron out any problems as they arose.
Apart from utility costs the Club would have no expenditure to make on the Hall during the 15 year period, which would enable it to build up a substantial sum of money towards its future accommodation costs beyond the 15 year period. Exactly how much he said would depend on attendances, levels of table money etc, but it could be as much as £100,000.
The Club’s Management Committee were unanimous in believing that it represented a very good deal for the Club. They did not believe the Club could get a better one and for this reason the committee recommended it unreservedly. However because they believed that the support of the members was important, they had set an ambitious target of 75% of those voting being in favour of the proposal for them to proceed to sign the agreement. If only a minority of voters were in favour the proposal would be dead.
Valuable feedback had been received from several members with the main points being summarised and included in a document tabled at the meeting. The Committee had done their best to reply as honestly and fully as they could but further comments and questions were invited.
Malcolm Taylor had already proposed an amendment to the motion, which the Committee had discussed, and were happy to accept, as were the Parish Council. It was agreed that the amendment would be accepted without a vote.
There then followed a question and answer session.
|
Question
|
Answer
|
|
Are the committee satisfied that there will be sufficient parking space available?
|
There will be 35 spaces immediately available once the community hall is built with other parking facilities being available at the shops or the school. Parking at the shops for the majority of the bridge events would be in the evening.
|
|
Can it be confirmed that the reference to 75% voting in favour refers to those voting and not 75% of the membership?.
|
It was confirmed that it referred to those voting.
|
|
Is the £100,000 possibly accruing over the 15 year period a best or worse case scenario?
|
It is a best estimate but would to some extent depend on what happened to utility charges in the period of the tenancy.
|
|
The club is proposing to invest £100,000, the Parish Council a similar sum but there must be other significant investors who may wish to have a say in how the Hall is run once it was built.
|
Monies are promised from a number of sources but cannot be confirmed until planning permission is granted. No building will be started or clubs monies be released until this achieved. Once the building is complete it will be handed over to a charitable trust, with a management committee, who alone will be responsible for running the centre and there will be two members of Rugby Bridge Club on the committee to look after the club’s interests.
|
|
There will be a requirement for a number of key holders. Who will determine this?
|
The Hall’s committee will determine the number of key holders but whatever is agreed will have to be workable for the Club.
|
|
We currently use three venues and at each venue there is a caretaker or someone who takes responsibility for ensuring that everything is available for our needs. There will a requirement for a similar arrangement to be in place in the proposed centre.
|
This was acknowledged and again the point was made that it was a matter of detail and would need to be addressed by the management committee for the Community Hall.
|
|
Are the committee satisfied that there is sufficient space available in the proposed centre to meet all the clubs needs?
|
Yes. If necessary consideration could be given to using the committee room for overspills or for match events although there may be a charge for the use of the small room. Equally the main hall could be used for one day events but again such use may incur additional charges.
|
|
Consideration should be given to the possibility of the dividing wall between the club’s proposed room and the meeting room being partitioned to give greater flexibility to the space available.
|
It was agreed that there was merit in this suggestion, which would be put to the Parish Council for consideration.
|
|
Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the building and the club’s room?
|
As tenants the Club would have no responsibility for the maintenance of the building or of the club room but would be expected to act responsibly for any rooms or areas used by the club.
|
|
What about Health and Safety issues?
|
Health & safety issues would be addressed as part of the planning process but once the building was completed and handed over to the trust, the management committee would have responsibility for Health and Safety.
|
|
Are the committee satisfied that there will be sufficient parking space? When the main hall is in use there could be up to 160 people attending and there will be other local groups wishing to use the premises.
|
There will be 35 parking spaces immediately available once the build is complete and there are other parking facilities adjacent to the building, which could be used to meet such demands.
|
|
It is important for the bridge club to have its’ own identity. What can be done to advertise our presence?
|
It has been agreed that the placing of notice boards and other similar material will not be unreasonably refused and could include an external notice, the main door and the door to the club’s room.
|
|
The proposal being considered is the most exciting one that has been put forward it satisfies our needs and is good news.
|
Comments greatly appreciated.
|
At this point it was suggested that a vote be taken on the proposals before the meeting. Votes of those present and postal votes were as follows:
Those Present Postal Votes Total
For 44 28 72
Against 1 2 3
Abstained 2 2 4
The Chairman in thanking those present for the overwhelming support given to the proposals said they would now go forward to Cawston Parish Council to seek agreement to proposed changes and pointing out there was need to make a change in the wording of paragraph of 7.1.3 by the removal of the word Director which applied when the club were a limited company.
The Chairman asked if there was any other business. In response to a question, he stated that 4 trustees had been appointed by a deed: Peter Langley, Philip Shorey, Wendy Pattinson and David Hicks.
It was stated that the Annual General Meeting would take place on Tuesday 21st May 2013 which was in accord with a decision taken that the Club should have a financial year of the 1st April to the 31st March.
|