Statement regarding the Village Hall

Polperro Community Council (PCC) has a policy not to interact with social media posts for many reasons. Such interactions are rarely considered with all the facts laid before the reader to have an objective opinion, and also because councillors have no individual powers to comment publicly on behalf of the PCC. Decisions are made by majority voting at a properly convened meeting so an agreed response or position does not fit with the immediate nature of social media posting. PCC is taking the opportunity to make its position public in the hope that a more calm and considered debate can be held to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the residents of the parish as a whole rather than special interest groups.

The document is long, but so is the time that attacks on the PCC have occurred. This is an opportunity for you to understand the truth and the fuller picture rather than just through the lens of uninformed and often malicious social media posts.

Brief Village Hall History

The school was acquired by PCC’s predecessor in 1979, the title owned by the parish council and the management taken on by a team of local residents operating within a charity constitution and the terms of the lease. Included in both the charity constitution and the lease were the organisation’s “Charitable Objects” which are as follows:

TO PROVIDE A VILLAGE HALL FOR THE USE OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE PARISH OF LANSALLOS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF POLITICAL RELIGIOUS OR OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDING USE FOR MEETINGS LECTURES CLASSES AND FOR OTHER FORMS OF RECREATION AND LEISURE TIME OCCUPATION WITH THE OBJECT OF IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE OF THE SAID INHABITANTS.

Management continued the same way until March 2020 when the death of the then chair of the charity sadly coincided with the worldwide lockdowns caused by the Covid pandemic. As a direct result of this difficult time a small group of councillors were asked to support the remaining management team in moving the Village Hall forward into a new era.

Formation of the CIO

A public event was held in April 2023 where the Village Hall management committee with the support of PCC proposed to move the charity from its informal status to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). This move would give greater personal protection to the trustees and being incorporated meant that the charity itself could enter into contracts (such as a lease and employing staff) rather than in the name of individuals. (The existing lease was in the name of three residents who had considerable liability). The form of CIO was the association model constitution that has members at the heart of the control. It is members who elect trustees and steer the strategic direction of the charity and thereby the Village Hall. The public meeting agreed that a CIO should be formed, that the funds held by the old charity should be transferred to the new charity (acceptable within the constitution of the old charity) and that a new lease be drawn up between PCC and the CIO. The CIO was set up with a small number of trustees (as required by the charity commission) whose first job was to organise an EGM, which took place in November 2023 for members to elect their trustees. By agreement those present were deemed to be the inaugural members and their names and contact details were taken to form the initial members register. Nominations for trustees were requested and 12 trustees were elected by the members.

Sadly, despite the high hopes of PCC to see the new CIO embrace its role and drive a revitalisation of the Village Hall for the benefit of the whole community two and half years on there has been no progress. The intervening time has seen CIO trustees repeatedly come and go and general failure to adhere to the charitable aims of its constitution. Rather than growing the number of users of the Village Hall the trustees have significantly reduced them.

Concerns over the management of the Village Hall

PCC expressed concern over the direction the trustees were taking the village hall and asked that the CIO provide the PCC with a plan as to how they were going to develop and manage the village hall going forward and increase usage by the community. They were also asked to present the plan at a council meeting so councillors and members of the public could engage and have questions answered. Bear in mind that the work of previous management committees had transformed the main hall of the building into an excellent, well-equipped facility for theatre and cinema performances and other events, as a sound basis for a genuine, active community centre. No plan was ever received, social media posts by CIO trustees referred to “the audacity” of PCC for requesting such a document. The outright refusal to engage on the PCC’s concerns led to considerable mistrust on behalf of the PCC towards the CIO trustees. A number of social media posts aimed at the PCC and individual councillors were libellous.  Some posts point to the incompetence of the PCC with management of the Village Hall – the PCC has never managed the Village Hall – since 1979 it has been the responsibility of charity trustees.

Future of the old Headmaster’s House

It is not common for parish councils anywhere in the UK to take on the role to provide or manage social housing and PCC has been quite clear from the time the house became vacant, coincidentally at the time the CIO was formed in November 2023, that it had no desire or ability to be a landlord of a domestic rental property.

But far from standing in the way of a project to get the house into a legally rentable state (or even converting it into flats as was suggested by some) PCC simply asked to be presented with a plan that had been properly costed and show where the funds would come from. To date PCC has received no such written plan.

Recently members of the PCC met with the CIO trustees that are fronting the project. PCC felt that whilst no formal plan had been presented,  those present had seemingly considered and addressed a significant portion of what was needed to progress successfully given that they had identified a potential gross cost of more than £60k to complete the necessary works. This was the first time PCC had been made aware of these figures and noted that they had not been included in the information given to residents who had been asked to sign a petition to drive the project forward. It was stressed by PCC that in order to proceed all actions and decisions should conform to relevant legislation, law, CIO constitution, health and safety, insurance considerations and renting regulations. Recommendations from PCC on advice from Cornwall Council’s housing department were that a separate incorporated body should be set up to hold a new lease with PCC for the house alone and to act as landlord to the eventual tenants. Generous grant funding being potentially offered by Cornwall Council to aid the project was conditional on this. A “Way Forward” document was then drawn up by PCC to encompass the points discussed.

It was proposed that:

1. The house project team set up an appropriate legal entity.
2. PCC and the new entity enter into a lease for the house.
3. The old lease (which currently contains the house) must be cancelled.
4. That future management of the Village Hall would be performed by PCC directly in the immediate future to allow the CIO trustees to concentrate their efforts of progressing the house project. It was also stressed that no work should take place on the project until both parties agreed to this proposal and all necessary insurances and risk assessments were in order.

Having failed to even acknowledge PCCs correspondence, it was with great concern that PCC learnt of requests posted online for volunteers to join a group to rip out the kitchen and take the debris to the tip. It was clear that the very serious requirement to delay work until the right legal framework was in place had been ignored. Also the debris from this work would be classified as trade waste which needs to be transported and dumped by contractors with the relevant licences and permits. PCC cannot be associated with such illegality nor did it wish for community members to be compromised in this way. It was in this context that a “cease and desist” notice was served on the group in order to formally add legal status to our requirement. This was not PCC saying that it did not support the project but support would only be given if work was being carried out with proper regard to good practice. If an accident happened or significant damage was done to the property, insurance would probably not pay out due to the informality of the volunteers’ legal status. In such a situation who would be liable? PCC did not want there to be any legal or financial risk to trustees, PCC or parish council tax payers.

Petition

Much has been made on social media of this document which PCC would like to address here. For a petition to hold any real standing there are standards of good practice which can easily be found online that dictate a number of necessary actions. While it did present a clear aim – to instruct PCC to restore the Old School House as affordable housing for a local family – it did not advise the people asked to sign what financial impacts may be involved. The CIO trustees were modelling their project on the Three Seas Coastguard Cottages scheme in Looe and had direct support and advice as to how to engineer their aims. To this day they have failed to take the necessary actions. Indeed, when PCC met with the CIO last month it also became clear that they were largely unwilling to take responsibility for a points based system that would be needed to identify the likely deserving local occupants of the house. A petition also needs to be signed and accompanied by a full address. The CIO advised on social media that more than 200 people had signed. In fact, no one signed, it is just a list of names, some clearly written in the same hand, with a postcode. Whether the CIO bothered to look at this in detail is unclear but when PCC analysed the document what it found was that 15 names appeared more than once, including two of the Trustees who appeared three times, people who are not resident in the parish, second home owners and sadly two people who were deceased. This has not shown the CIO in a very open and transparent standing again to the PCC.

Flyposting

Residents and visitors may have also become aware yesterday either in person or on social media posts that flyposting in reference to the old school house has taken place, defacing our beautiful village. The content suggests this can only have been created by someone closely connected to the CIO and brings into question their real commitment to the wellbeing of this community.