CAR PARK UPDATE

At last there is some progress with refurbishing the church car park (‘not before time’ you cry!)

The Diocesan architect has invited contractors to provide costs for two options to resurface the car park in an attempt to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Parish.

Option 1 - Marshalls Driveline Priora Permeable Block Paving (or similar) laid in 90 degree herringbone pattern. Colour - Bracken, with parking bays etc marked out using Charcoal coloured blocks.

Option 2 - Golpla (Hoofmark UK Ltd) high quality recycled hexagonal plastic cell system (or similar) with max 10mm beige/grey decorative stone infill. Cell colour Silver/Grey, with parking bays etc marked out using Golpla’s plastic inserts (in white and/or yellow).

In addition the tenderers are to include for:

A A central kerb to divide the car park into two separate areas, with a street lamp at either end (lighting controls fitted in the church hall).
B Four bollards (one each side of each entrance) indicating the kerb edges (particularly when obscured by snow).
C Footpath adjacent to the white timber fence (which remains) to improve pedestrian access and protect the west lamp post. This shifts the three DDA spaces, but does align the two central rows (instead of the present staggered arrangement which makes pedestrian access between cars difficult). As a result:
(i) the parking bay layout is revised
(ii) one car parking space lost
(iii) a motorcycle space is added
D Dropped kerbs for wheel chair access.
E Kerbs extended across end of Disabled Bay.
F Cross hatching painted on access road area to define No Parking zones
G Existing soakaways cleaned out and connected to a new channel drain along the west side.

Tenders are due back on 21^st November, so we may know the result before this report is published. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns (email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).

J Grainger

At a recent two-part P.C.C. meeting (May 10th and 16th) the decision was taken not to go any further forward with the main part of the building project. As had been requested at the A.P.C.M. we held a congregational meeting on 29^th May to explain the reasons for this decision and to listen to the views of the congregation.

As I assured those present at that meeting, the P.C.C. had considered long and hard the reasons for proceeding:

It was always part of our original plan!
We have been working towards it for so long.
We have been busy raising money with this in mind.
There was an expectation that it would happen.
It would be a faith and prayer challenge!
We would benefit from a welcoming entrance area and more ‘circulation’ space etc.
It will provide a ‘visual statement’ to outsiders that the church is alive and moving forward.
We have all the main permissions needed.
We have already spent a considerable sum in professional fees.

But weighed against that we felt that the reasons for stopping were overwhelming:

We can’t afford it! (and are unlikely to be able to in the foreseeable future) - the full scheme is £1.75m. The reasons for the high costs are the difficult nature of the site and the need to get diocesan permission to build on to an existing church building without spoiling its character. This meant that expensive materials such as stone were having to be used.
Our plan to build in phases meant that the idea was to start on the so-called cloister, but it became apparent that by itself its benefits would be limited and not good value for money - e.g. it would have no connection with the hall and vestry.
Although we need more accommodation for youth and children’s groups, this space might not be ideal for that purpose.
We would be duplicating kitchen facilities by adding an additional kitchenette but without refurbishing the existing kitchen.
Unless we were able to raise a substantial further sum we would reach a point where we were not be able to go out to tender anyhow - so everything would slowly grind to a halt.

Where to now

1. We accept that God's guidance is sometimes hard to determine but in the end always reliable. We pray and go forward as seems right at the time, but always conscious that God may have different plans for us. Through inescapable circumstances God seems to be saying ‘not that way’ - at least not now.

2. If God closes one door, another will open. Without rushing off too madly in a new direction, there are many possibilities. We have got some funds that can potentially be used. Some money has been given into a restricted fund specifically for improvements to the hall and we shall respect the wishes of the donors, and do whatever best practice indicates. Other money has been given for general purposes but has been designated by the P.C.C. for the project.

3. The whole congregation owes an enormous debt of gratitude to John Grainger for the immense amount of work he has put into the project. I am especially grateful for the way he took the news of this P.C.C. decision.

Thanks are also due to the Fund-raising team for all their hard work. The various fund-raising events were of great social benefit, as well raising money.

Here is a summary of the points raised and comments made by those present:

Could a simple structure be built on the side of the church? Something which might not need planning permission?
If improvements are made to the existing kitchen will space be lost from the hall area?
How much money is in the fund? Is it enough for the kitchen and toilets? The treasurer gave the figure as approximately £300,000
What is the time scale for the improvements?
Improvements to the crèche area are badly needed as the area is very damp
What about disabled access?
Can a structure be built to house the chairs in the hall so as to give more space in the hall?
What was the reaction of the architect and the rest of the professional team? John Grainger reported that Derek Kemp expressed disappointment, but accepted it was a decision we had to make. He has archived the material.

Is the hall structurally sound? The answer was that a recent structural survey had shown it was. Is there therefore any possibility of extending it south?
The electrical supply to the hall needs to be upgraded.
When is the next decision likely to be made? We should not delay too much as costs mount all the time.

What should our priorities be now?

Kitchen
Toilets
Damp in crèche
Safe outdoor play area
Improvements to the car park (lighting and resurfacing) But in response it was reported that the diocese are supposed to be taking this forward anyway.

It was suggested that the building sub group should get to work to present some specific ideas to the July P.C.C. meeting.

And the final point, which I whole-heartedly endorse, is that biggest challenge is to increase the size of our congregation and get it really expanding.

Stephen Bowen