1. Introduction
An Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of Gotherington Parish Council will be held In the Village Hall at 7.30 pm on Monday 22 January. At that meeting the Parish Council will decide whether or not to proceed with the purchase and renovation of the Church Centre. Please attend and give us your views during the public speaking section of the meeting. It is extremely important that we hear from as many residents as possible. There won’t be a public vote but the views of the residents will be the most important consideration for the Parish Council in making its decision.
With the assistance of KBW Chartered Surveyors we have conducted a two stage tender process and analysis of the tender responses has led KBW to recommend a contractor. We are now ready to move forward with the purchase and renovation.
The decision on the night will be final. We will go ahead with the purchase and renovation or we won’t. There are no other choices.
This page and the linked pages have been set up to provide background information prior to the meeting. The main areas covered are the building and the finances
Caroline Meller has very kindly provided a short history of the building, also known as Gotherington Chapel.
Finally, further information will be transferred to this page over the weekend.
2 The Building
The condition of the building has degenerated in recent years and not wishing to spend money on its renovation in August 2016 the The Countess of Huntingdon Connexion Trust took the decision to sell it on the open market. First refusal was offered to the Parish Council and it has has taken us until now to come forward with the final proposal!
This section looks at the state of the building and the main recommendations for the renovations. The full scope of the works is detailed on the ITT page. At the start of our journey many residents voiced concerns that the building was in such a poor state that no amount of money would make it useable and it would continue to be a drain on the village’s resources. During the past year we have undertaken structural, damp, drains and asbestos surveys. If not covered by commercial restrictions these survey are included on the ITT page. The results of the surveys have given us confidence that the building can be satisfactorily renovated and it won’t be a drain on the village’s resources.
External
Render
The following photographs relate to the render on the outside of the building.
Front Elevation 
Side Elevation
We think that the top photograph was taken in the early 1900s and and shows that render on the front elevation. The lower photographs were taken in the past few months.
We believe that the front cannot be successfully returned to its original condition of exposed brickwork and it will have to be lime rendered to ensure that the brickwork can breathe. In contrast, the side elevations were painted and a cement render was applied later, probably in 1983. In many places the render has not adhered to the painted bricks and has cracked leading to rainwater entering the cracks and remained trapped behind the render, in turn leading to the general dampness in the building. It is possible that the render and paint can be successfully removed and the brickwork repointed with a lime mortar. If this could be achieved then the overall effect would be a lime rendered front elevation and exposed brickwork on the sides and rear, similar to this house on Malleson Road.
It appears that the building has been constructed to the same standard as other buildings in Gotherington that were built around the same time. It is not built of rubble as some residents have suggested.
Roof
Initial surveys suggested that replacing the concrete tiles with light weight slates would reduce the load on the roof enabling the roof structure to be retained. However, later surveys recommended replacing the entire roof structure, leading to a considerable escalation in costs. Following the recommendation we will replace the entire roof and it will be covered with Marley Eternit Blue-Black slates. (sorry, we can’t afford proper Welsh slates.)
Front Yard
The left and right walls will be rebuilt. The existing concrete ground cover will be removed and the front yard will be covered with stone chippings.
Internal
Damp and Dry Lining
Many resident were concerned that the damp problems within the building could not be rectified and the building would always be damp. We have commisioned studies which led to the recommendation of a damp proof membrane for the following reasons:
(a) Once the membrane is fitted, replastering works can commence immediately and decoration works can normally be carried out within a few days, thereby saving many weeks of “drying out” time and, just as importantly, as opposed to a chemical damp proof course there are no restraints on the type of decorations that can be used.
(b) The membrane will deal effectively with all contaminants that may remain within the underlying masonry by forming a physical barrier, thereby avoiding the almost certain occurrence of future deterioration of plaster and decorative finishes due to salt contamination.
(c) By retaining the damp behind the membrane, the system will deal effectively with both rising and penetrating damp, thus avoiding the need to install a chemical damp proof course or have “tanking” works carried out.
(d) The membrane can be installed on top of the existing plaster which will avoid the considerable mess and disruption caused by plaster removal, in addition there will be a considerable saving in both time and money with this method.
The ITT specified Olroyd or similar for installation of the membrane. Two inches of insulation has been included in the specification leading to a thermally efficient building.
Ceiling
Unfortunately, as a consequence of removing the roof structure the lath and plaster ceiling, including the central moulding, will have to be removed. A new lath and plaster ceiling is prohibitively expensive and we will have to make do with plasterboard.
Lighting
The ITT specified cove lighting
3. Tender process
The tender was conducted as a two stage process. During the first stage a full Statement of Work (SoW) was issued and analysis of the returns identified areas where significant cost savings could be achieved. As a result of the following changes were made.
Windows
The top early 1900s photograph shows horizontal glazing bars on the left and right front elevation windows. The bars are not present on the current windows. In the first SoW we included replacing the windows with ones having glazing bars to improve the visual appearance of the building. However, as the current windows are perfectly serviceable we have decided not to replace in order to reduce costs.
Renovation of the left elevation sash window was included in the first SoW but has now been changed to a task for a village working party.
Wainscot Panelling
To save money removal of the wainscot panelling and floor coverings will now be undertaken by the Working Group
Kitchen
Removal of the kitchen will be undertaken by the Working Party. The installation of a new kitchen has been removed from the SoW. The old kitchen may be returned to its original place or, pending funding from other sources, a new kitchen may be installed.
Doors
The first SoW contained line items for replacement doors for the stairs, toilet and kitchen. Those line items have been removed.
Telephone and TV aerial
Removed to save costs
Front Yard
Stone chipping have been specified instead of flagstones to reduce costs.
Outcome of the Tendering Process
The responses to the second tender have been analysed by KBW and a recommendation has been sent to the Parish Council.
3. Finances
Overall cost of the Project
| Item | Cost |
| Acquisition | 50,000.00 |
| Conveyance Fees | 1,000.00 |
| Vat on Conveyance Fees | 200.00 |
| Renovation (approx) | 120,000.00 |
| Vat, on renovation | 24,000.00 |
| PM/CA Fees | 10,321.90 |
| Vat on PM/CA Fees | 2,064.38 |
| PC Contingency | 8,000.00 |
| Vat on PC Contingency | 1,600.00 |
| Seed funding to CC operations | 1,000.00 |
| Extras | 1,720.90 |
| 219,907.17 | |
| Less PCC Funding | -19,000.00 |
| Less S106 | -27,282.00 |
| Additional Funding required | 173,625.17 |
Acquisition: The building will cost £50,000 to be paid in two Instalments: £30,000 on exchange of contracts and a further £20,000 in March 2019
Renovation: This line item contains £8,000 of contingency.
PM/CA: Project Management/Contract Authority fees are 8.5% of project costs.
PC Contingency: Parish Council contingency is in addition to the PM/CA contingency. The contingency is used only used following a decision at a Parish Council meeting in public.
Seed funding to CC operations: This is initial funding to the building to pay water, gas and electricity bills and any other expenses that may occur during renovation and the initial operation of the building
PCC Funding: The Parochial Church Council has very kindly donated £21,667 without conditions to the Church Centre acquisition and renovation. Some of this has been spent on survey work leading around £19,000 remaining in the donation.
S106: The S106 funds from the Malleson Road and Gretton Road developments.
PWLB Loan
The Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) is part of the UK Debit Management Office and has the authority to lend to a number of public bodies including Parish Councils.
There is at least one precedent for Gotherington Parish Council borrowing from public funds. In 1964 the Parish Council part funded the purchase of the land for our current playing fields through a public loan. Caroline Meller has kindly supplied some documents relating to the purchase of the field. They are: “Community Life in Oxenton, Woolstone and Gotherington“, published with Topics March 2005 Edition; conveyancing( con1 con2 con3 con4 con5 con6 ) and related newspaper articles
Loans have an attractive rate of interest that is fixed for periods of up to 50 years. Once agreed, the loan has to be drawn down within one year. Interest is calculated and paid every six months. Interest rates vary and are set twice a day. All of the loan doesn’t have to be used.
4. Cash Out and Cash In
The operation of the Church Centre is evaluated on a Cash In Cash Out basis. The assumptions are:
2020/2021 Tax Base 589
Precept £12/year , £1/month
Cash Out is made up of two elements
National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR)
Other fixed costs per month are in the table below.
| Insurance, including public liability | 36.00 |
| Safety Checks | 17.50 |
| Repairs, maintenance and sundries | 17.50 |
Income
Cash Out
| Item | Cost |
| RFO | 10.00 |
| PWLB Loan | 710.50 |
| NNDR | 34.00 |
| Water | 8.00 |
| Electricity | 18.76 |
| Gas | 30.60 |
| Insurance, including public liability | 36.00 |
| Safety Checks | 17.50 |
| Repairs, maintence and sundries | 17.50 |
| Total | 882.86 |
Cash In
| Item | Income |
| 42 hours @ £8 | 336 |
| Precept 589 @ £1 | 589 |
| Total | 925 |
Conclusion
For the above assumptions there is a surplus of £42.14/month which is £505.68/year, which is approximately a saving of £1 on the band D precept.