|
Minutes of the
Project Team Meeting
Monday 7 March 2006
at Bealings Village
Hall
Present
Eric Barnett (EB) (Chairman) Jenny Shaw (JS) (Project Leader),
Margaret Wilson
(MW), Roger Roseboom (RR), Julian Haywood-Smith (J.H-S),
Keith
Beaumont (KB), Malcolm Watson (MXW), Rick Kerry (RK),
Ferial Rogers
(FR),(Minutes).
ALSO In attendance
Jim
Newbold, major fund raising.
1. Apologies
Charles Barrington,
Sally Johnson, and Mike Hudson who has resigned because he is leaving the
district.
2. Minutes of
previous meeting on Monday 6th February 2006
Minutes as distributed were agreed. JS reported that she had been advised of
some minor typos since issuing and has corrected the master minutes but
these had not been reissued.
3. Selection of
Landscape Designer Partner
3.1. Update on selection status
JS
updated the meeting on the work of the design team – four companies were
invited to present of which two stood out. After due consideration the
design team has chosen Giles Hill, at the Landscape and Sculpture Design
Partnership, who offers the best value for money and a greater sensitivity
for the needs of our rural environment. He had recently been consultant to
the project leader of a similar project in another Suffolk village, Cavenham.
KB advised the meeting that he had been to see the site at Cavenham to
confirm understanding. JS advised that a formal letter of appointment has
been issued to Giles Hill and we have received his letter of acceptance.
3.2. Project Timeline/Next Steps
JS
handed out the draft timetable for the design stage as prepared by Giles
Hill for discussion. The timetable of work starts early March and completes
at the end of June 2006 with submission of the planning application: JS
advises that the plan shows monthly design team meetings around the end of
each month but dates have not yet been set for these. The summary of
comments received is as follows:
·
The timetable
seems to fit well with date for Annual Village Hall Open Meeting.
·
The VHMC need
to be kept informed and an extraordinary VHMC meeting needs to be set prior
to the May 9th Open Meeting. Action JS Giles to be invited
to present.
·
J.H-S
suggested that the submission of the planning application would ideally be
brought forward to the beginning of June. Action Design team
·
There was
discussion about the project team’s original assumptions re the need for
planning approval. With the inclusion of a toilet on site planning approval
is certainly needed however RR suggested that as the hall needs some
improvements (windows etc.) it might be better to have a separate project
which caters for an extension to the Village Hall to provide equipment
storage and toilets for field users. EB said that planning is most likely to
be needed for heavy earth moving anyway.
·
Giles’
timeline assumes that planning approval is required and it was agreed that
we would work on this basis. EB suggests that we should assume that the
planning response would not be received until late summer.
·
EB mentioned
that the local development plan had at one time been very negative about the
position of the play equipment, one reason being its remoteness. He was
aware that the comments in the plan had mellowed in the latest version. The
meeting’s view is that the Playingfield is by far the best location, and in
fact, centrally placed between the two parishes. Action EB to
check whether the current planners are likely to object to our plans for
refurbishing the field.
·
J.H-S
wondered when the first sod could be turned, because we need to be seen to
be doing something, to keep the interest up. It was agreed that we would
like to see the earth work started in the autumn. EB said that we could
install play equipment much sooner if it did not interfere with later
engineering works. The meeting agreed with J.H-S that we must present an
approximate overall timetable to complete the project when we present at the
Open Meeting on 9th May.
3.3. Project Issues
·
JS mentioned
that the VHMC minutes of 17th January states that the project
should include an on-field store-room for equipment. The project team should
be aware that the project brief agreed by this team and issued to Giles Hill
did not mention the store-room and that this may incur additional costs to
all aspects of the project.
·
There was
general discussion about where to bank the local funds raised before the
Friends is in a position to open its own account. It was agreed that it is
preferable that the funds go into a separate account opened by the VHMC and
we should wait for the VHMC approval to set this up currently expected to be
once planning approval has been achieved. EB suggested that in the meantime,
local fund raising for the Playingfield would be paid into GBPC.
·
JS advised
that we have arranged to receive invoices from Giles Hill in the name of the
VHMC which we believe is a charity and therefore able to obtain refunds of
VAT. Given the delay in setting up a special VHMC bank account JS asked if
arrangements could be made for the designated Parish Council funds to be
paid to the VHMC who would then pay the bills. After much discussion it was
agreed that the invoices would be paid by the Parish Council’s when
presented. However, there is a concern that this might make the project
liable to VAT. MW is not certain that the VHMC is able to claim VAT refunds
and would look into this and report back. Action MW.
4. Major
Fundraising
RR and
JN have been conducting extensive research into options for funding and RR
tabled a document on Rules for Preparing for Grant Funding and outlined the
key points:
·
The ability
to get lottery funding is effectively seen as the ‘diligence test’ which
other grant funders follow. It is clear that most small grant providers will
support projects which have already won lottery funding.
·
Too many of
the previous lottery projects have not delivered the benefits that were
foreseen and funders are therefore now looking for good evidence that the
project is going to meet the stated needs. We therefore need to make it
clear that our plans support facilities for all ages and interests and serve
to local community as a whole and serve to enhance the local ambience by
being sensitively landscaped. The football and tennis facilities need to be
part of a much wider picture.
·
the initial
lottery application seeks to gain agreement to the concept and a response
would be received within 15 days. Once this agreement in principle is
received the project team has six months in which to submit the full
application with detailed costings, at least 3 quotes for the work as well
as evidence of planning approval. The lottery will take 3-4 months to
consider the full application.
·
RR suggested
that when we have a strong case to show, we will be able to approach local
people for additional sponsorship.
·
RR pointed
out that it is also vital to have the full approval of the VHMC. Further,
it should be fully involved in the Open Meeting on 9th May.
George Ball, the Chairman of VHMC, is planning to stand down. RR suggested
that he will volunteer to take on the chairmanship and that George stays as
‘Maintenance Adviser’, a job which George loves. This was met with
unanimous approval. EB suggested that a full-time maintenance person might
be employed to do the work identified by George.
·
RR thought it
vital that the Friends works in partnership with the Village Hall to improve
all its facilities as a whole.
JN
then reported that he had spent some time at Ipswich Council Voluntary
Services (ISCV) going through their database of funders. There are many
possibilities and we have to target the businesses that we think would be
interested in us.
We
could also look at the Sports Watch fund.
JH-S
suggested that the Friends might join the Co-op, but we would have to be a
charity for this. MW said that as part of the Village Hall, it did have
charity status.
EB
asked what the position is with Suffolk ACRE and RR is to follow up.
Action RR
RR
suggested that we invite the ISVC Grant Advisor to one of our meetings and
advise on the process. It was generally agreed that this would be very
helpful and that the VHMC should also be invited. FR who is on the board of
Trustees for ICVS felt that if the Friends met the criteria, the funders
would be extremely helpful. This would be carried through even after the
grant is awarded.
5. Local
Fundraising
·
MXW reported
on the first event, the Car Wash on 4th March. This had been an
outstanding success with many cars to wash in the time span. He praised his
team of young helpers (and some older ones) who had worked hard and
enthusiastically, despite the bitter cold. A grand sum of £135 had been
realised.
·
Plans are
underway for the bike ride and fun event on 21st May. The police
have been informed, the insurance and licence still have to be arranged. EB
can arrange for a gazebo tent on the field and for road signs. MXW hopes
that a local ITFC celebrity, whose children attend the school, is able to
open the event. EB may be able to get signs from Rotary Club “Beware
Cyclists” MXW to talk to Gil Peck about Public Liability. Actions for EB
& MXW.
·
Two further
events, the Curry and Quiz Night and the Casino Night have been arranged for
September and November.
·
MXW asked for
suggestions to fill the long gap. RR suggested that we ask Jill Ganzoni to
allow use of land on the Belstead Estate to be used for a car boot sale
sometime in July or August. Another idea was an Antiques Auction. Peter
Carr at The Old Post Office might be asked for advice.
·
FR pointed
out that events arranged so far appealed to one section of the population.
We needed to draw in wider interest. How about a talk on local history with
emphasis on the two churches? Also there are film and theatre groups, who
tour rural locations that we can research.
·
MXW advised
that a target should be set for local fund raising and then publicised. JH-S
suggested 10% of the Grant application amount. It was agreed that we should
aim for £5k per year over the next few years.
6. Little
Bealings Parish Council Update
·
JS advised
that Little Bealings is seeking to progress the request for a permissible
footpath as put to Mr Rolfe. SCC has asked for supporting evidence of how
many people will use the path to form the basis of a case for SCC taking on
the maintenance.
·
JS also
advised that the LBPC has approved submission of a request to Peter
Bellfield for an allocation from his locality fund budget. We can expect
that LBPC will receive £1000 which they will put aside for the Playingfield
project.
7. O/S Actions
not covered by the Agenda
·
JS advised
that she has written very recently to Mr Rolfe thanking him for his support
for the footpath and to ask for more information on the offer of land which
might be considered for a future project – as noted in the minutes of the 6th
February.
8. Any Other
Business
The
first draft of the Newsletter had been circulated prior to the meeting and
amendments noted. FR/MXW would endeavour to have this ready for distribution
by 10th March. There was unanimous agreement that the school has
a Playingfield Logo competition, which will be judged by the revellers at
the Fun Day. This will become the official emblem of the Friends and is
intended for use on the Newsletter and letter-heading for all
correspondence.
Next Meeting:
Tuesday 4 April at 7.30pm.
|