Meeting on 26/7/2021 at 2.30pm with the Working Group and the SYCC Management committee

Present: Doug Morrison; Mick Cox; Cllr David Salter; Cllr David Thompson (Chair); Cllr Shelia Beilby; Cllr Gail Nicholls.

1) Introduction

Doug Morrison requested that before the meeting commences, he be given the opportunity to read a statement. This was agreed and he began by thanking Cllr Thompson for producing the document that he had sent him at such short notice but said that he felt that it was not sufficiently detailed and raised a series of questions. The statement is attached to the minutes. DT queried why only DM and MC were representing the SYCC MC, DM said he had already indicated that it was proving difficult to get individuals together. DT pointed out that the whole reason the meeting had been called and arranged was so that the SYCC MC could hear from the WG the decisions that have been made by the SPC. DT felt that we would be able as a WG to answer any questions raised by the SYCC MC.

DFS felt it was disappointing and a great shame that the rest of the committee hadn’t attended.

DM is unhappy at how the WG operates, and as an example used the fire safety contradictions between three fire officers’ opinions and building surveyor.

DT refereed back to the survey; we are not proposing to go into details. It will be put to SCC that SPC do not want to own – this is the big principle. DT pointed out to him that Jill Street their treasurer had already written to SPC asking about funding for the works that need doing.

DT reconfirmed the SPC do not want to own the hut but, we want to see if the SYCC MC do and we wish SCC to progress this. The session today was to develop this with the SYCC MC and a letter was sent to Doug by our clerk to stress this point.

DS read out the unsigned SPC minutes beginning with Cllr Thompson…..

DM asking about trusteeship following the information Shirley had sent out,

DM was requested by DT to try to telephone other members of S Y & C A, which he did but, only succeeded in contacting Val Neale who joined the meeting.

DT, DFS and SB explained to DM that trustees manage a building for the beneficiaries which in the case are the villagers in Stonnall. It takes about 40 days to constitute a trust, and this should have been done 20 years ago as a condition of the lease. DT spoke about the simple rules involved.

MC asked about the owner of the building, it needs to be a ‘significant body’ DFS stated

There was then a discussion about the role of trustees DFS spoke about insurances and that the indemnity insurance covers more.

MC asked about the termination of the lease there was a discussion around this subject.

DS stated the lease is for the land, and that the building is viable/recoverable which it wasn’t 20 years ago.

DT spoke about what would happen if SCC agreed, it would mean that if funds could be raised for a new build the first tranche of c 30k of repair works then needn’t be done as long as it was within two years.

DM raised the need for repairs to the outside tarmac and wall, DT quickly bought the discussion back to the bigger picture.

DT carefully explained it could be a blend of the Friend report and the SYCC surveyor Also the repairs needn’t be done be done if the SYCC MC decide to rebuild.

DM ‘why can’t we carry on as before’. SB pointed out there is no official body to oversee the SYCC MC and all other parish buildings have Trustees.

MC asked what would be the relationship between the SPC and the Trustees and DT/DFS replied funding and potential Custodian Trusteeship.

DT spoke about the meetings had had with the officer from SCC and SCC wanted a ‘democratic strand’ to the future ownership/governance. DFS pointed out again that the SPC are currently only leaseholders.

SB said the Village Hall committee have no interference at all from SPC, only that our accounts have to be submitted each year. DT felt that a governance charter would be set up.

DFS these are the big issues that need to be sorted out, and that is why the SYCC MC should have been here, this group do not even have a written constitution.

DM asked again about how does a trusteeship work, DFS replied this time.

DT reiterated the whole point of this meeting was to talk to the SYCC MC but, this hasn’t happened as no on has turned up. There are six missing members of the SYCC MC.

DM said that he needed to be in a position to be able to explain the situation at the forthcoming AGM and he did not want the Working Group to attend the AGM. DM was informed quite correctly that it was a public meeting and anyone could attend.

MC wanted to know how much help SPC would give sorting out the trusteeship, he was pointed in the direction of Support Staffs.

DT the first thing we need is for the SYCC MC to agree, and then we can take it forwards to SCC. We need to move forwards and draw a line under this.

DM feels that the SYCC MC may agree to this overall proposal

MC asked more about who could become a trustee, SB explained at the VH we have no representatives from organisations that use the hall. Also, if your trustees change you have to let the charity commission know. SB has some information that Shirley has sent to us about trusteeships and she’ll email it through. DM thanked her.

DFS met with County Cllr David Smith last Friday, David Smith had misheard the discussion at the last SPC meeting, DFS explained it too him. The idea he came forward with is a group of people who would become a Trust body and they would work with the SYCC MC on fund raising. SYCC MC would continue to run the building. DT explained that a Holding Trustee is a passive role similar to a Custodian Trustee. It was explained that David Smith is involved as our SCC representative.

DM what happens if SCC don’t agree to sell?

DT the SPC view is that the SYCC MC should become the owners, there was a discussion about this and, MC is in favour of Trusteeship.

DT stated we can’t speculate about what would happen if SCC didn’t agree to what we’ve put forward.

MC asked about the SPC plan B and at the moment it is confirmed there isn’t one.

We then went on to discuss the works needed in the short term and that they should be done by a reputable contractor after several quotes are obtained. This work needs to be indemnified and guaranteed.

MC would like to know if SCC would agree to the SYCC MC taking on the sale. DT reiterated that ‘democratic accountability’ was the terms used by the officer he dealt with and the SYCC MC would meet that with SPC in the custodian role.

DT we will pursue a date in mid August after 16/8/21 to try to move things forwrd as quickly as we can. DM said he would support that.

The two following documents are attached.

1) Link to the agenda from David Thompson Chair of SPC Working Group

2) Link to a statement from Doug Morrison Chair of SYCC MC