Parwich Memorial Hall Management Committee Meeting
7.30pm – 9.30pm 6th April 2009 – The Memorial Hall
Minutes
Building the Future
The Chairman introduced 2 more of the Design Team, Chris Price from Prosurv and Ben Daykin from Rogers Leask and then summarised the decisions made at, or deferred from, the last meeting.
Discussions covered storage not agreed at the last meeting, the mobile bar idea, the positioning of sockets, best option for having boiling water available in the kitchen, constraints re drains and sink positioning, the relocation of the boiler from last weeks plans, the lighting plan including positioning of lights, switches etc.
KD shared the changes put in from last weeks discussion which included the storage doors creating a wider opening and the addition of shelving, and that he had built a storage space in for a mobile bar.
CP also reminded the Committee that final changes would need to be made by 20th April so tender documents could be sent out on 27th April in order to keep to the time schedule.
Decisions made at this meeting:
The piano should be offered to a good home (sold if possible with funds going to the project) and that the keyboard solution should be pursued. This would be included in the Youth Opportunities Bid.
The idea of a mobile bar was the right solution. (Perhaps the Legion could be approached to see if they would sponsor the costs of the bar)
The storage KD had built in for the bar and taken off the ladies toilets was the right solution.
TM would double check with PN (Stepping Stones teacher) if there were any specific storage solutions she wanted the Committee to consider for the plans asap and let AJ or MGP know..
The sighting of the boiler in the cleaner’s cupboard was a better position for it than the original site.
That VK and JG take the kitchen plans away to add more detail such as sink positions (considering the possibility of the bar being in the kitchen on occasions), storage, cooker size and location of sockets.
There should be a boiling water ‘tap’ installed rather than a boiler for making drinks.
That the old tables be stored above the stage until it was clear whether they were needed as well as the ‘stage tables’ solution or not. (Access hatch to be made large enough)
That a concrete floor would be needed in the storage areas to take the weight of the trollies carrying staging and chairs.
EL should check out what gym equipment the school had and needed to store as the bench length was crucial for the store door size.
A lockable cupboard was needed for the Film flight case and a separate lockable cupboard for the keyboard.
AC/EL should consider any further placements for sockets than on plans presented.
That Gordon Macmillan would consider the original lighting plan sent by MGP.
The meeting room should have 10 stackable chairs with no arms which were comfier than the folding chairs.
That KD would check other manufacturers for folding doors ideas as the current design did not work with the doors going out to the terrace.
AOB – None
Present
Sandra Chadfield, Arnold Chadfield, Betty Fentem, John Fuller-Sessions Mike Gerard-Pearse, Janet Gosling, Amanda Johnson, Val Kirkham, Ed Linnel, Tracy Marshall, Di Turnbull
Also present
Keith Dobbins (Architect), Ben Daykin (Structural Engineer), Chris Price (Prosurv) Brian Beasley, Patti Beasley
Apologies – Ben Bennett
Date of next meeting – 7.30 – 9.30 20th April in the Memorial Hall
PARWICH.ORG 
I wonder whether the school would be interested in having the piano?
Why is any one orgnisation being asked to sponsor anything in somthing that is costing alot more then it should.
There SHOULD BE NO NEED for sponsor ship in this project ask PROSURV for some more money or is it money for projects????????
Also perhaps the people who donated the pianoe might be ask their prefered destination for it before you sell it
FUMING AND LOCAL
hear! hear! born n bred
Several years ago I was one of a small group of fund raisers who raised money to buy the school a piano, recorders and other equipment to enhance the musical life of all the pupils. I do not have the faintest idea what has happened to them BUT I have trusted the school to do whatever they thought best. To me a donation is like a present – I give it willingly but do not expect to have ownership of it once I have given it away.
Sorry can’t manage ‘born and bred’ – only 28 years! However I do feel that as members of our community, people should be free to make whatever contributions and CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions they would like. We should not have to ‘serve time’ to be eligible. I am sure that none of us would like to serve a life time only to demonstrate a less than generous spirit.
As a blog team we have decided to leave Born N Bred’s comments on, even though it is almost verging on libellous. It is terribly sad when ill-informed people make such sweeping and inaccurate comments and are then unable to put their name to their comments – why? Because unlike the committee, all volunteers, who have published the minutes regularly in the file in the pub, with names, so that we know who is present, these anonymous bloggers know that they will not have to substantiate their views, justify or prove what they are saying.
These comments are extremely hurtful and distressing to members of the committee and we are very fortunate that their commitment, honesty and integrity to this project will not stop them, despite the negativity of a small number of people. As a blog team, we feel that the way forward is for “Born and Bred” to attend the next committee meeting on 20th April, when part of the Design Team will be present, to put their views forward and to be able to debate these issues in a fair handed way.
We are also verifying the validity of the email address. If it is not valid, then according to our comments policy this comment will be removed.
The answer to “Born N Bred’s” question about why we need sponsorship is very simple. No funding body will provide 100% of costs. Regardless of the cost of the project, we would still need to raise additional funds – hence the request for sponsorship.
Funding organisations (such as the Big Lottery Fund) demand a commitment from the recipient of any grant. This is achieved by people donating their time and by a wide range of funding activities – something that a large number of village residents are working very hard at.
When there are so many people, working so hard to help improve facilities for everyone in the village, what is achieved by impugning their motives?
Are some people feeling frustrated, angry or even upset by Born n bred’s comments? This is how some people are feeling about the hall in general, and this is not neccesarily a small number of people. The issue of people not feeling they can put their name on their posts has been raised before and some people could be concerned that openly voicing their opinions may result in them feeling they may be judged on this in other social situations.
It is important to remember that there is still a small number of people in the village who were involved in the construction of the original hall, and many more who over the years have been involved not only in running, using and maintaining the building. The emotions and more aptly ‘memories’ linked to the current ‘memorial’ hall are longlived and it’s demolition and construction of a replacement, is not going to be viewed by everyone as an exciting thing, but almost an end of an era and strong emotions will be linked to this.
Regardless of what people feel this ‘new’ hall is now, most likely, going to go ahead. Not everyone is going to be in agreement as to whether this is the best thing for the village, or whether an extension would have been sufficient. However a well worded questionnaire was offered to all the village, young and old, and people are beginning to accept that this is what’s going to happen.
However it is worth recognising that there will always be two sides to every story. It is not surprising that some people are going to want aspects of the current hall to be respected and preserved.
In answer to Eli W’s considered post, from my perspective the answer is no, I personally am not upset about the understandable views of some who re-built the existing Memorial Hall, and I completely understand and appreciate the sentiments which Eli so eloquently expounds. What I am really upset and angry about is anonymous posts impugning the integrity of the hard working group who are acting on the democratic majority’s wishes. As Eli points out, the decision to rebuild the Hall again for future generations was taken following a full consultation and public vote, and whilst people have a right to disagree with the result without social stigma, they have no right to make false statements publicly to try to subvert the process. If you read the Memorial Hall Committee minutes, you will find consistent reference to the need for respect and inclusion of all the Village, especially those who were instrumental in rebuilding the Hall the last time, and those who have special associations with the present building. To imply their views are being trampled on is totally misrepresentative.
It seems there has been a concerted effort to maliciously broaden the issue to sow seeds of discord in our Village. The majority in favour of the rebuild are both from families who have lived in Parwich for generations, as well as more recent residents. In the same way, the people who are not in favour are from both old and new Parwichian’s – so to imply what is going on is some kind of hijacking of local sentiments is untrue and unfair.
In such circumstances what are we to do? Does the Management Hall Committee resign on mass, and therefore allow a vociferous minority to get their way over the majority who want and need the new Memorial Hall? In particular, the largest user group – Stepping Stones, our pre-school group, who are going to be using it long after most of us are gone.
Who will run the Hall, and who will make it comply with new statutory legislation which requires extensive building work anyway (and thus fund raising – sponsorship if you like)?
This constant, and in my view ridiculous, spreading of gossip, rumour and inuendo relating to the design and build of the new Hall is simply another attempt to try to derail the process. It’s easy to do when you have a medium such as this, and you have fair minded people who give the likes of Born ‘n Bred air time.
I understand the change in the design team was brought about, in the most part, because of cost. Why would we employ a group who want six figure sums for “professional fees”, when we don’t need to? The cost of rebuilding the Hall at £1Million plus under the previous design regime was a complete non-starter – not only could we not raise that kind of money, but in all likely-hood we wouldn’t have got any Big Lottery Fund money at all (according to BLF information itself). It was only a lot of fleet footed work by a few people at the last minute, which, in my view rescued our BLF bid which had taken months to compile, from imminent disaster. The last day (a Sunday) before that submission, I watched as three of our community put in a 14 hour day to meet that deadline, working with figures submitted to them just two weeks prior to submission deadline which were not in accord with what the Management Committee, or the Village as a whole had democratically approved, and would probably have resulted in our bid being rejected. The bid was then hand delivered to the BLF in Birmingham with hours to spare to ensure we had the best chance of success.
The same argument can be used for any donation to the Hall rebuild – why should we use stone, fittings etc. etc. that we have to pay for if someone is prepared to give it to us? And why then are people suspicious of the motives of those who selflessly give in these circumstances? Is philanthropy an alien concept to some in Parwich?
As I understand it, the procurement of the construction contract will be subject to guidelines from the BLF and other grant giving bodies, and in accordance with accepted industry standards. It will be open to full public scrutiny, and go out to tender so if any qualified construction companies wish to do it for nothing, it will be very hard to turn them down!
To be honest i’m a little confused as to why there is not a permanent bar structure within the new design?
I would have thought it would be quite a high priority, is it too late to get one included as an alternative to a mobile bar?
From memory, the meeting I attended when the plans were shown to everyone there appeared to be quite a large entrance hall – could this not be down sized to include a bar?
I am assuming the legion will be approached with regards to the proposal of sponsorship?
Carl – thanks for your useful feedback. This kind of comment is gratefully receive and taken on board in the design process.