Discussion about management of the proposed new community centre
On Tuesday 19th February a group of us met to discuss how the proposed new community centre should be run. These are my informal notes from the meeting.
Present at the meeting
Paul Wright, Chair of Bells Gardens TRA (making these notes)
Amanda Johansson, Chair of Lindley TRA
Cris Claridge, Chair of SGTO
Amanda Carey, SGTO administrative officer
Danielle Patton, Project Manager for the new homes and community centre, Southwark Council
Ian Brindley, Community Premises Officer, Southwark Council
Background
In the past, the community centre was run by the Bells Gardens TRA. SGTO used office space at the community centre. In this period of time, the TRA was having difficulties and eventually folded (we eventually relaunched). The community centre was falling into disrepair and disuse so Southwark Council asked SGTO to take over management. SGTO have a "tenancy at will" at the community centre from Southwark Council, although this arrangement gives them minimal rights. SGTO keep strictly separate accounts for the community centre, and any income pays for Jerry the caretaker and running costs.
Since SGTO took over, Amanda Carey was given the job of managing hall bookings. This was never part of her job description, but the council did not give SGTO extra funding to employ a hall manager.
Cris is also involved with Nunhead's Voice, the group that runs The Green community centre. Unlike our community centre, which is owned by the Housing department, The Green is owned by Properties. This means the community have a much greater financial burden for upkeep and have to make this money by hiring out halls. This means community events may be priced out. At Bells Gardnes, the TRAs currently enjoy free use of the halls, with priority over paid rentals.
Views on management
I summarised two contrasting view among Bells Gardens residents. On the one hand, we are very grateful for Amanda's work keeping the halls working, and recognise that we would not be able to manage this as volunteers. On the other hand, there are those who think that decision-making about the community centre should be in the hands of the TRAs that use it, especially now the Bells Gardens TRA is back up and running. I suggested this could be achieved by having TRA members on a centre management committee, with a paid staff member handling day to day running.
Amanda J broadly agreed with both these contrasting views.
Cris was emphatic that SGTO are not defensive about keeping management responsibility for the centre. If they were to carry on this responsibility in the new centre, they would want funding from the council for a centre manager, so that Amanda can do the SGTO work she was hired to do.
Project Groups
The design of the new community centre and decisions about its management will be discussed by a project group made up of centre users, people from Southwark Council, and an independent advisor. There will be a separate project group for the new homes. Danielle said she currently had few volunteers for the community centre project group. Paul and Amanda both expressed an interest in taking part. Amanda had already been involved in a project group for the Lindley Estate redevelopment. We reviewed the dates for the project group meetings. Cris was unable to attend the first two, so she will find an alternative representative from SGTO. We agreed she should be able to attend the later meetings as an extra, since she has valuable experience from The Green.
Funding the new community centre
Daniel explained that Southwark Council usually build new blocks with100% of the units for council tenants. Because the community centre has to be funded separately, they will raise the money by selling 30% of the units privately. Amanda was concerned that this be kept in to a minimum and asked if the percentage could be reduced if the project group were able to design a community centre with a lower budget. Danielle explained that the units for private sale would be the same design as the council rent units, so this should be possible.
We discussed how the upkeep of the centre would be funded. Ian explained that this is complex and would need to be discussed in detail at the project group. Paul raised the principle that currently the community centre is free at the point of use to TRAs and that we did not want to be in the same situation as The Green, with use of the halls dominated by groups that can pay. Cris said that if SGTO were responsible for a new centre, they would not want to sign a lease, because they would be responsible for major works bills, which they would not be able to afford. Ian noted these concerns and principles in preparation for the project group meetings.
Other discussions
We discussed a number of issues that were not specifically about managing the community centre.
Amanda J said she understood this is the only new home project that is on green land, as opposed to former garages etc. Danielle said that the Haddenfield Estate redevelopment was on green land, although it was a much smaller project. We all agreed that we would need to save as much green space as possible.
We discussed light and overshadowing. This is an issue that architects always look at in detail. In one project, the block was designed with fewer floors in the centre to allow light to an existing block.
Southwark promise no loss of amenity to community centre users. This means alternative space must be provided before the current centre could be demolished. Amanda asked about details: would this mean the same square footage? Danielle said this had not been defined, but would be decided at that project group: for example they may find that they prefer a design with less square feet to preserve more green space, depending on the current day use of the community centre compared to when it was designed back in the 1970s.
Paul and Amanda J expressed concerns that building the new community centre in its final site before removing the old one would constrain the design choices for the project as a whole. In particular, it would mean the new centre would have to be set back from the road. Paul asked about the possibility of putting up portacabins for a temporary centre to allow a new one to be build on the same site (this had been mentioned at previous meetings). Cris thought partacabins would not provide enough space. The only other space would be between Edwin House and Neville Close, which residents would not like. The practical solution will have to be worked out in detail by the project group, but all agreed that providing continuous amenity had to be the priority. Ian added "How to provide continuous amenity" to his FAQ list for the project groups.
Amanda asked whether the wider communtiy were being actively engaged, for example residents of roads neighbouring the estate and other groups that use the community centre. Danielle said her colleague Helen Laker had sent letters to the neighbouring road. We suggested Amanda C could email community centre users inviting them to the project group, if Danielle wrote a message. The message would have to come from SGTO because of GDPR rules about how you can use email lists.