A Result - SELL

Well I have to admit I didn't attend THE meeting, got a call out.  But, I have been able to fish around since and got a nice picture of the proceedings and a nice little nugget that has been passed to me for which I am truly grateful. 

Fewer residents than last time attended, which gives you an idea of the interest in this derelict building.  Despite the agenda being nice and simple, apparently some wanted to extend proceedings to argue the lost cause, which was expected.  In particular some trustees of the trust were spouting to the bitter end, unable to face facts.

In particular, one resident /trustee babbled about costs of insurance etc and how these had come down in recent years.  Not sure how she arrives at that considering this:

£10,000 on a feasibility study that might have been a grant but still came out of the pockets of Nottinghamshire residents.  Repairs costs in the intervening years since 2010, insurance premiums.  A tidy sum, to come to a conclusion that was arrived at in March 2010.  Well what happened, well bit of a long story but read this:
                                           _______________________________________

MISTERTON COMMUNITY TRUST

PUBLIC MEETING

SATURDAY 6^TH MARCH, 2010

CHURCH ROOM, MISTERTON

1.         ATTENDANCE

            Councillor H. M. Brand, Chairman of Misterton Parish Council, chaired the meeting.  Also in attendance were 43 inhabitants of the Parish of Misterton, aged eighteen and over, together with the Clerk to the Parish Council, Mr. D. Wright.  Councillor C. Burton (Misterton Parish Council – Walkeringham resident) and District Councillor R. A. Simpson were present as observers.

2.         INTRODUCTION

            Councillor Brand welcomed everyone to the meeting, and began by referring to the agenda, which invited the meeting to consider the following resolution:

            ‘We, inhabitants of the area of benefit of 18 years and upward, agree to the sale of the land and premises known as Misterton Victoria Institute.’

            Councillor Brand explained that, although the published notice of meeting also referred to the possibility of the building being demolished and the site being redeveloped as a sensory garden, advice received from the Charity Commission the previous day indicated that that was not a legal possibility.

            Councillor Brand then read out the relevant advice from the Charity Commission, which was:

            “Having checked the governing document of the charity, a Scheme dated 1 March 2006; the object of the charity is, ‘the provision and maintenance of a village hall for use by the inhabitants of the area of benefit’.

            “Clause (2) refers; ‘The land identified must be retained by the trustee for use for the object of the charity’.  If this cannot be done, then the objects of the charity have failed.

            “In these circumstances, it is not acceptable to keep the land for different purposes other than a village hall.  It would be in the best interests of the charity to sell the village hall on the open market, and obtain the best possible price, applying the income from the proceeds of sale for the benefit of the inhabitants, as determined in the Scheme.”

Councillor Brand then gave a brief presentation of the history of the building and its recent demise.  The building fell on hard times in 2002, when it was abandoned by its trustees.  It was then badly vandalised, and the interior was rendered derelict.  Over the next four years, the Parish Council voluntarily carried out repair and safety works, and eventually assumed trusteeship in 2006, together with responsibility for the Village Hall (former Temperance Hall).  The new charity was named ‘Misterton Community Trust’.

The Parish Council decided that the building had no future as a village hall in 2006, and called a public meeting, as required by the Scheme, on 10^th June, 2006.  At that meeting it was unanimously agreed to begin talks with the County Council about the possibility of incorporating the building into a rationalisation programme involving all the public buildings at School Corner.  Unfortunately, those discussions ground to a halt in July, 2009, when the County Council made it clear that the Victoria Institute no longer figured in its plans.

The Parish Council then formed a working group, comprising parish councillors and residents, to look at possible uses for the building.  Unfortunately, no viable and sustainable use had been identified.

In the circumstances, the Parish Council had recently decided that the building should be either sold on the open market (she gave details of expressions of interest already received) or, if legally possible, demolished and the site redeveloped as a sensory garden.

Maintaining the building in its present boarded-up state was a drain on the finances of Misterton Community Trust, which largely represented the balance of the capital receipt of the sale of the Village Hall.  If these funds were eventually used up, financial responsibility would then fall on the Misterton council taxpayers.  Insurance was the main expense, although the Parish Council’s insurers had indicated that the premium would reduce in 2010/11. 

The building continued to deteriorate, and the Parish Council, as trustee, was under a legal duty to act in the best interests of the trust.

At the conclusion of Councillor Brand’s presentation, the Clerk explained that it was now the responsibility of the meeting, as required by the Scheme, to decide whether the building should be sold on the open market.

The Clerk also explained that, at a meeting with the Charity Commission in 2005, senior Charity Commission officers had advised caution over attempting to revive failed charitable buildings, as, although done with the best of intentions, such initiatives were often unsuccessful, leading to a loss of public money.      

3.         DISCUSSION

A discussion then followed, at which the following main views emerged:

·         The Victoria Institute was an important Misterton feature, with considerable history, and every effort should be made to retain it as a charitably-owned amenity.

·         The Parish Council had not done enough to find a sustainable charitable use for the building – disputed by Councillor Brand.

·         The Parish Council was accused of acting too hastily, in an effort to market the building before the forthcoming Parish Council elections.  The matter should be left to the newly elected Parish Council.

·         The Misterton Centre should be relocated into the Victoria Institute – the Clerk explained why this suggestion was not viable.

·         Retention of the Victoria Institute as a village hall was a more viable proposition than creating a community centre at Millennium House.

·         A resident who had discussed the matter with the Charity Commission indicated that it was legally possible for Misterton Community Trust to gift the building to another charity – this was not an option given in the legal advice received from the Charity Commission.

·         With a question mark over the future of the Methodist Hall, it made sense to retain the Victoria Institute as a charitable building for a little longer, as further deterioration would be limited in the short term.

·         Although the Clerk assured the meeting that the grassed area to the rear of the building was not owned by Misterton Community Trust, Councillor Trossell and Mr. Stead argued that it was.

4.         CONCLUSION

Councillor Trossell moved, and Mr. Stead seconded, the following motion:

‘That consideration of the future of the Victoria Institute be deferred for a year, on the basis that the 2010/11 insurance premium would be met by Councillor Trossell and other friends of the Victoria Institute’.

The Clerk suggested that the resolution proposed by the Parish Council should first be disposed of, but Mr. Stead protested that, as Councillor Trossell’s motion was an amendment, it should be taken first.  The Clerk said that he didn’t mind which way it was done, as the object of the exercise was to ascertain the views of those present.

Councillor Brand then put Councillor Trossell’s motion to the vote, when there were 32 residents in favour and 7 against, and the motion was carried.

The resolution proposed by the Parish Council was not, in the circumstances, put to the vote.   

                                          __________________________________

Interesting and very embarrassing for certain people especially considering it is now September 2013. Mind you, they've only just decided to sell and if they drag their feet!  Well you know what they say, it's not over until the fat lady sings.