THE NEW VILLAGE HALL STORY
Over the last 22 years there have been several attempts to build a new village hall, some on its
present site and some on a different place on the Recreation Ground.
In the year 2000 two village residents put forward a proposal to build a much larger New Village
Hall on the Recreation Ground car park costing in excess of £800,000, this did not proceed any
further as funds were not available and an application to the Lottery was turned down as the
project was considered “too ambitious for a village the size of Debden”.
In 2001 the idea of moving the village hall to another location opposite the present hall was
brought up with the National Association of Local Councils whose solicitor wrote to the Parish
Council that “I do not advise any arrangement for a permanent building to be erected by the
village hall committee on land owned by the council (as trustee or not). This situation can create
legal problems and I can see no advantage in it”. After consultation with the Charity Commission
and Stoneham solicitors, Councillors were informed that they had no alternative but to set up a
Charitable Trust. The Recreation Ground Trust was registered with the Charity Commission in
2002 with Parish Councillors as Trustees to hold and run the assets under the 1906 Open
Spaces Act as specified in the conveyance deed entered into when the Parish Council had
purchased the land in1922 for £120 from Lady Strathcona, a local benefactor.
As a result of the advice of the solicitors, in 2004 the Village Hall Trustees put forward an
alternative proposal to rebuild on the existing site at a total cost of £516,000. A booklet was sent
out with the Parish Pump to present this new project for the building of a new village hall. (see
plan below)
In it the then Chairman of the Village Hall, Stephanie Watson, explained in great detail the
advantages of rebuilding the hall on its present site, among them:
“The fact that we can build this new structure on the current site with only a very small
encroachment onto land held in trust by the Trustees of the recreation ground.
The proposed new building offers the same facilities as we have always had, it stays a village
hall and does not become a community centre or a sports centre
The village shop will remain standing during construction and the new building will cover the
shop with a new roof and make it appear part of the new building”
Unfortunately, although it had received planning approval and in excess of £30,000 raised in
donation from residents, after 2 years the project was abandoned after all attempts to raise
further significant funding failed.
Nevertheless, the message above shows that the Village Hall Trustees were aware of the
implications of encroaching on land owned by the Recreation Ground Trust.
The Village Hall Trustees agreed to continue running the existing hall, but they did not wish to
lead or fund raise future projects to build a new hall.
In 2010 the Chairman of Debden Parish Council drove a project and put together a team to
design, build and fundraise for a New Village Hall. This was costed at £716,000 and given
planning permission in 2011.
In the two years that followed it became apparent once again that this level of funding was not
achievable.
It is against this back ground and lack of success that a group of volunteers set up the New
Village Hall Group (NVHG) in 2013, initially proposing a partly self-build project to build a much
larger new hall on the Recreation Ground car park for a total cost of £262,000. The New Village
Hall Group were determined to build a much bigger hall to include a badminton hall and a shop
on a new site in the belief that this was what the village wanted.
This initial proposal escalated to £729,000 not including the cost of replacing the Sport Pavilion
estimated at £150,000.
The Village Hall Trustees were forced to take an interest at this stage as they would be liable,
as the constituted body, for any funds raised and spent on a project in the best interest of the
charity.
However, what has happened in practice, is that this project has been led by the NVHG mostly
with the best interests of a new Village Hall for the VHT but to the detriment of the Recreation
Ground Trust and has resulted in a series of unwise decisions that have led to the eventual loss
of the Army Covenant Grant.
In 2013/14 a new proposal emerged to build a new village hall on land opposite the existing
village hall.
Although plans were put forward and planning permission sought for building on the new site
both the NVHG and the VHT omitted to find out whether it was actually possible to build on the
chosen site given the covenant that existed on the Recreation Ground.
When the new Parish Council was elected in May 2015 and the Village Hall Trust asked if “in
principle” a “land swop” could be agreed upon, the newly appointed RG trustees resolved to
follow the Charity Commission guidelines and seek professional advice from a charity law
solicitor.
The advice came back that to proceed with the land exchange would be against “the benefit of
the Trust and detrimental to it as it didn’t meet the like for like criteria of size, location, value and
usefulness”.
The Trustees also sought the advice of the Charity Commission and their response was that:
“We note that the trustees have sought their own professional legal advice with regard to the
charity entering into a land exchange with the Debden Memorial Institute charity (301294). With
regard to the land exchange it is up to the trustees of each charity to determine whether the land
exchange is in the best interests of each charity”.
This advice, together with other considerations such as loss of parking spaces, much reduced
access to the meadow, loss of open aspect of the recreation ground and others was taken into
consideration by the Trustees when, at the next meeting of the Recreation Ground Trust they
resolved to vote by a majority to reject the proposal for the land exchange.
Only 5 trustees were eligible to vote as two trustees had a conflict of interest from a point of
loyalty to another charity or organisation as one was the Chairman of the Village Hall Trust and
the other the Chairman of the New Village Hall Group.
From January 2016 onwards both the VHT and the NVHG tried very hard to persuade the RGT
Trustees to change their decision, but they stood firm and refused to do so.
There were several exchanges between the two Trusts and the Parish Council. A number of
articles appeared in the Parish Pump accusing the RGT of neglecting their duty to the village.
What they failed to realise and acknowledge was that the Recreation Ground Trustees had to
act in the best interests of their Charitable Trust and not of the Parish Council or the village.
In November 2016 the Army Covenant Trust became impatient as the deadline for the starting
of the new building was not being met and began asking for the return of the grant by February
2017.
In an attempt to break the impasse, a local resident, Simon Langman, put forward to the RGT a
plan for rebuilding the village hall on its present site. At an open meeting organised by the
Recreation Ground Trust a large number of villagers expressed interest in the plan and a
questionnaire sent out to every household to state “I support the rebuilding of the new village
hall on its present site: Yes/No” returned 81 Yes and 51 No. A booklet with explanatory notes
on the proposal and how the RGT and PC could support the Village Hall on its implementation
was also sent to every household in the village.
One of the ways in which the PC was going to help was the hiring of a temporary building to
accommodate the pre-school and other village hall users at no cost to the Village Hall Trust
whilst the new hall was being built
In December 2016 The VHT and the NVHG had a meeting with the Recreation Ground Trustees
at which they agreed to consider a suitable proposal by Simon Langman who proceeded to
commission a local architect to come up with a design that incorporated all that was required by
the Village Hall Trust. This was to be funded by private donations from a group of residents.
In February 2017 two meetings were organised in which the architect Peter Purkiss and local
resident Simon Langman presented the new project to the village and answered any questions.
There was an almost unanimous approval of the new proposal.
The deadline for the MOD grant had expired in December 2016 and Colonel Will MacDonald
had worked hard to achieve a postponement to the end of February on the proviso that all 3
official organisations, the VHT, the RGT & Parish Council, together with the voluntary NHVG,
could prove that they were working together on the latest proposal for the new Village Hall put
forward by the private resident.
To this effect all parties sent individual statements to Colonel Will expressing their willingness to
work together on the Purkiss project to rebuild on the current site.
At this stage the grant was safe, there was an excellent plan on the cards which
achieved planning approval within a couple of months and with some judicious fund
raising could have got the new village hall building started within a year.
However, soon after, Mike Fairchild, the Chairman of the New Village Hall Group NVHG
withdrew his statement and this effectively put a stop to the progression of the cooperative effort
of the PC, the RGT and the VHT.
Mike Fairchild made a number of misleading assertions claiming that the Army Covenant could
only be applied to building the hall on a new location on the recreation ground and not rebuilding
on the same site. As the Parish Council had not been involved in the application for the Grant
they were not, at that time, able to challenge these statements. He also claimed that if a New
Village Hall Group was to take over this would invalidate the Army covenant as the NVHG had
been signatories of the same. (This was unfounded because the covenant did not specify the
names of the members of its Committee.)
What was really frustrating was the VHT’s and the NVHG’s incapacity to understand that for the
RGT Trustees to agree to their plan and location on the recreation ground would not be in the
best interests of their Trust and, as their solicitor had advised against it, the Charity Commission
would not approve the land exchange.
Some people even suggested at a public meeting organised by the NVHG that if the present
RGT Trustees were worried about personal liability, they should resign and let another group
take on the responsibility of acting against legal advice, after all, who, in the village, would report
it to the Charity Commission!
In retrospect, it is unfortunate that the stance taken by Mike Fairchild, the Chairman of a selfappointed, unelected, un-constituted volunteer group like the NVHG with no legal authority,
should have had such a strong influence on the project for a new village hall for Debden. Their
insistence on a different site from the current one, without taking appropriate legal advice, was
to create all kinds of problems which dragged on for a long time.
This was certainly not the intention of Lady Strathcona who bequeathed the land for a Memorial
Hall in memory of her soldier son who had died in WWI. (The entry in the Army Covenant Grant
Agreement lists the Group as “The New Village Hall Group (NVHG) is a committee of volunteers
responsible for building a new village hall for Debden”.)
To break the impasse, a Colonel Blakey was appointed by the MOD to find an alternative
solution that might satisfy all parties. The Chief Executive of Uttlesford District Council, Dawn
French, agreed to help organise a Mediation process that would bring all the parties together to
agree the land exchange between the two Trusts and would save the Army Grant.
From the preliminary meetings with UDC when the reasons behind the stance taken by the RGT
not to allow the land exchange were explained, the decision was understood and accepted as
being valid.
However, Mike Fairchild, again, did not relent and the process of Mediation started.
After the first meeting with the Mediator a new proposal for a different location on the recreation
ground was put forward and this was reluctantly adopted by all parties as there was, again, a
risk of losing the grant funding. A lot of pressure was put on Councillor Forster and Councillor
Blackie to accept this proposal, not doing so, apparently, would have meant that a new grant
would have to be applied for and it would only amount to approximately £25,000. So, that meant
the end of the consideration of the Purkiss/Langman’s alternative project. However, this new
proposal, which moved the village hall on the recreation ground, would involve the demolition of
the Sports Pavilion which would turn out to be a thorny issue later on.
Eventually, the two Trusts engaged the services of Charity law solicitors to put together a
contract for the land exchange, an application to the Charity Commission to allow the land swap
and also Surveyors to value the two parcels of land. The Village Hall Trustees refused to pay for
legal advice required by the Recreation Ground Trustees nor for the services of a Surveyor.
The RGT, who had no funds to cover those costs, had to resort to the Searle Trust for a grant of
£8,500.
The Co-ordinating Group set up under the direction of Tom Thomas, the Mediator, met on
several occasions and reasonably good progress was made. However, because of delays on
the terms of the land exchange contract, the application for approval to the Charity Commission
had stalled by the beginning of December 2017.
In 2018 Meetings continued at a very slow pace in attempting to draw up the terms and draft of
the contract for the land exchange between the VHT and the RGT. In any case, no progress
could be made with the land exchange until the application to the Charity Commission was sent
and a response received. Amongst the terms to be agreed in the contract was the completion
date to obtain the go-ahead for demolition of the pavilion and the start of the construction of the
new building. This was difficult as it was dependent on the VHT having achieved full funding for
the project.
In April 2018 a progress report was sent to the MoD Community Covenant Fund with news that
“the physical extent and position of plots that comprise the land exchange” had been
established. The two plots of land had been assessed by two firms of surveyors and it had
been agreed that they were of similar size and value and therefore met the Charity Commission
requirement of “like-for-like”. In addition, an invitation to submit a tender for design of the new
hall and costings was issued to a number of architects. Meetings had been held with three
short-listed firms and inspections made of their work. The VHT would be responsible for
demolishing the existing pavilion. A new pavilion would be built elsewhere on the
recreation ground, possibly on the site of the present hall, behind the Village Shop and
Post Office
In May 2018 once again the VHT took a unilateral initiative when Richard Cawte decided to
contact the Charity Commission to hurry the approval to the land exchange after a first response
from Anne Grayling from the CC
Eventually a reply was received from Ms Grayling stating “May I reiterate that we need to
understand how each will manage the conflict of interest and also what the arrangement is with
the shop”.
In June 2018 Richard Cawte and Elisabeth Blackie sent a joint reply to the CC with a
comprehensive explanation on how reservations about conflicts of interest had been dealt with
and how the land exchange was to the best interests of both Trusts.
At the end of July a notification was received by Nia Jones, a senior officer of the Charity
Commission who had taken over the case, to say that the CC was making a draft order for the
land exchange as it was satisfied that the exchange ”is expedient in the interests of both
charities. This is based on the information provided and the valuation carried out by the
surveyor. We also note that conflicts of interest have been managed “
However, Ms Jones added “We note that a community shop straddles both the village hall and
recreation ground land. This includes a sub-post office. We note that this is community shop
and that it’s not run for profit. However, this is unlikely to further the purposes of either charity
(although it does not appear to affect their ability to further their purposes). The trustees of both
charities should take advice on this matter to ensure it’s clear on what basis the shop occupies
the land and, if the Commission’s consent is needed for this to continue, that this is sought”.
Thus started a long drawn out saga as to what to do about the shop.
In the end, the Village Shop Committee declared that, due to lack of customers and volunteers
they were forced to close after 35 years of serving the village as a Community Shop and closure
would happen by Christmas. The closure of the village shop, although regrettable, would have
meant that, by the terms of the agreement between the Parish Council and the Village Hall Trust
in 1983, the premises would revert to the VHT.
So, finally, the problem of the shop that concerned the CC would come to an end. Not so,
because, in November 2018, a group of village residents, headed by Stuart Walsh, who had
hitherto ignored the appeals for help from the current Shop Committee to the village at large,
decided to spearhead the creation of a New Shop Committee with a new configuration as a
”Company Limited by Guarantee”. The Village Hall Trustees could have refused to go along
with the new village shop group’s request for use of the premises for a new shop, but the
Trustees agreed that they should be given the opportunity to try to re-establish a shop.
In December 2018, just before Christmas, Debden Community Shop closed its doors for the last
time.
As the land exchange was not going to take place for at least a couple of years, Ms Jones
advised that both the VHT, at present, and the RGT after the completion date, should put in
place some form of commercial lease with the new management committee of the shop.
In January 2019 a draft order by the Charity Commission agreeing the land swap with certain
condition attached had been received. However, after the closure of the village shop, the VHT
had agreed to allow a new shop to start up which would be a Limited Company and would
require a commercial rent agreement with the new shop. The RGT solicitor said that whatever
lease was issued by the VHT with the New Management, must be agreed by the RGT and the
details of the legal agreement incorporated into the contract for the land exchange.
On the 18th March 2019 a preliminary sketch of the proposed new village hall building was sent
to the RGT Trustees for their comments. However, with no indication of the location on the
recreation ground land, the Trustees felt that, until further details were forthcoming, there was
little point in making any comments.
In retrospect, the RGT should have insisted in having the location plan showed to them at that
time. Not having sight of it backfired badly when the planning application was presented to UDC
planning later in the year when it became obvious that a major deviation had taken place from
that agreed at the Mediation.
Meanwhile, the agreement for the commercial lease with the shop was still nowhere. The Parish
Council and Recreation Ground Trust could do nothing more until the VHT sorted this situation
so, without the land swap taking place, stalemate had ensued.
Stuart Walsh, a private resident, had claimed he would get the new shop up and running by the
end of March, and, having set up a Limited Company with 2 other directors, duly resigned at the
beginning of the month
Having accomplished nothing with the shop Mr Walsh then decided, as local elections were
imminent, to spearhead a campaign of slurs and denigration of the current Parish Council and
Recreation Ground Trust with false accusations about them being responsible for the lack of
progress. With a group of NVHG supporters they produced electoral material listing a number
of topics alleging, wrongly, that the PC and the RGT had failed to achieve during the previous
four years.
On May 5th in the Local election seven candidates all new except for Stephanie Watson, were
elected to the Parish Council and ex-officio trustees of the Recreation Ground Trust. Since then,
all they have managed to do has been to cause major divisions in the Community, to date
neither the new PC nor RGT have managed to move on one inch from the position in the past
four years and lost the very generous grant graciously given to the village by the MOD!
A NEW ERA
WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE MAY 2019
The new Parish Councillors and Recreation Ground Trustees stuck to their electoral campaign
promise of “Time for a change” and proceeded to make all kinds of changes.
The New Village Hall Project
There was a delay as the project was connected with a satisfactory conclusion of the
commercial lease with the village shop. This was used as an excuse for inaction on the part of
the Village Hall Trustees.
However, at the end of November 2019 a hastily compiled planning application was submitted
to UDC. This application had a number of flaws, the most blatant of all being a lack of ecological
assessment which was immediately pointed out by the Planning authority who recommended
that the application should be withdrawn. The preliminary findings pointed out the presence of
bats in the roof of the sports pavilion and this meant that, until a proper survey took place in May
or June the following year, planning approval could not be considered. In addition, Place
Services raised an objection regarding the detrimental impact this plan would have on the
surrounding listed buildings.
Also, the location of the building on the recreation ground had changed. This had been moved
by 6 metres onto the car park, thus reducing parking capacity from 34 spaces to 15 and forward
by two metres creating a waste area at the back of the building. In addition, the RGT and VHT
Trustees forgot that the area vacated by the current village hall after it was demolished
,was supposed to be used for a new sport pavilion and instead had been designated for 4
car parking spaces.
The lack of any plans for a replacement sport pavilion was highlighted by Sport England who
put a holding objection until a planning application was in place. At the March 2020 Parish
Council meeting it was agreed to apply for planning permission for a new pavilion to be sited to
the left of the new village hall on the recreation ground thus taking up even more land from the
playing field.
This deviation from the original plan agreed with the Charity Commission meant that a new
order for the land exchange would be needed to be applied for and because the land exchange
was no more a “like-for-like” deal, the order might well be revoked.
In December 2019 when the PC and VHT were made fully aware that the MOD grant was
time sensitive, given the circumstances, they should have seriously considered the two
options: (1) to demolish the pavilion and build the new hall on that site, however, this did
not have planning permission and very little funding raised in the previous five years, or
(2) to revert to the Purkiss plan on the current site which had planning permission, was
less costly, had pledges from residents of well over £50,000 and did not require the
demolition of the pavilion.
The Parish Council stepped in and resolved that, in order to save the grant, additional funding
should be sought by applying to the Public Works Loan Board for a loan of £400,000 repayable
over 40 years. This would require an increase of the Parish Precept of 107% and the demolition
and rebuilding of the Sports Pavilion. The Chairman sent a letter to residents in early February
2020 to let them know that the PC had agreed at the PC meeting held on 5th February that a
consultation would take place on “the option of the PC seeking borrowing from the Public Works
Loan Board to support the costs of replacing the Pavilion and supporting the current funding
shortfall of the New Village Hall project in order to protect the MOD grant of £239,000 “ (this was
the wrong amount, it should have been £236,400)
At an Extraordinary meeting of the PC on 19
th February 2020 when it was requested that
resident should be allowed to vote on both options the Chairman said “I don’t see why not” but
when the consultation voting papers were circulated there was no choice except for option 1. At
this meeting the Parish Council agreed to apply for a loan from the Public Works Loan Board for
£400,000 to add to the Army Grant to enable Debden Parish Council to fund the costs of
demolishing Debden’s existing village hall and replacing it with a new one, in the event that
insufficient funds were otherwise raised by the Village Hall Trust.
The consultation was organised in haste and returned some very dubious results which most
likely would not pass the scrutiny of the PWLB and would bring the reputation of the PC and the
VHT into disrepute once the irregularities adopted by some of the Councillors and Trustees were
made public. A very important missing element in the consultation was finding out the support of
the village for the proposed plan. This is why a group of residents asked for a Parish Poll to be
conducted on the option of rebuilding the village hall on the current site. It is the case that, as the
UDC electoral services say, the results of Parish Polls are not binding on the Parish Council,
however, the Guidelines accompanying the Application Form for a PWLB’s loan specify that:
“You still need to provide details how local residents were consulted on the project and
associated borrowing even if you are not increasing precept to fund the loan”
And, when clarification was sought from a Senior Officer at PWLB, her reply was
“I would like to reassure you that our assessment process is rigorous and robust. For instance,
where the Parish Authority is increasing the precept, they must carry out either a survey or a
public consultation to show that a majority of residents show support for both the project and
any proposed precept increase.
The results must be carefully recorded, documented and submitted with the application. Even
where the authority is not increasing the precept, we still require that a general project
consultation is carried out as part of the application”.
Because of the Pandemic, the Parish Poll did not take place until May 2021 when the result was
a resounding approval to build on the current site by 132 votes to 29. As the Parish Poll was
conducted under the Rules and Regulations laid out by UDC Electoral Services and overseen
by them, this was a much more transparent consultation than the one used for the precept
increase.
At the time of the Consultation, there was some confusion as to the purpose of the Loan. In
addition to the demolition of the hall and the building of a replacement hall, plans also involved
Debden Parish Council’s commitment to the simultaneous demolition of Debden’s existing sports
pavilion and its replacement. Documentation made available to residents at the time of the
Consultation was inconsistent as to whether the Loan would fund the hall only, or could be applied
to both the hall and the pavilion.
An amendment made at Debden Parish Council’s meeting on 3 March 2021 (a year after the
Consultation took place) to the minutes of its meeting on 5 February 2020, clarifies that the Loan
relates only to the new hall and the inclusion of “support the cost of replacing the Pavilion” was
made in error. This was not clear, however, at the time of the Consultation and residents may
have voted in error, believing that the increased precept would fund a replacement pavilion.
As previously noted, the demolition and re-building of the hall and the pavilion are inextricably
linked, as one combined project. Indeed, the requirements of Sport England dictate that the
replacement pavilion must be in place and itself able to be used before the new hall may be
used, and that the replacement pavilion must be provided within a year of the demolition of the
existing pavilion. These requirements are reflected in a condition of the planning permission
granted in August 2020. In September 2020 a cost plan was drawn up by Dudley Smith
Partnership – with an estimated build total of £355,600.
Debden Parish Council had allocated £25,000 from its reserves earmarked for the project.
On 10th November 2020 a campaign was launched by the Debden Recreation Ground Trust of
which the Parish Council had decided to become Sole Trustee, to raise capital costs of £25,000
by the deadline of 15th December on the Aviva Community Fund online scheme to kick-start the
project,
On 16th December 2020 it was proudly announced “We Did It” we successfully raised £277 ( +
est. £45.00 ) with 8 supporters in 36 days”. (!?!)
And that was all that was raised, so the Parish Council finally came to the conclusion that a less
costly plan should be pursued for the replacement pavilion. The revised cost of the new pavilion
was estimated at £155,000 (minutes of Debden Parish Council’s meeting on 3 March 2021), of
which £25,000, to be provided by Debden Parish Council had been committed to date. A further
£130,000, therefore, had yet to be raised.
On 25 March 2021 Debden Parish Council applied to Uttlesford District Council to vary the
relevant condition, by seeking planning approval to extend the time period within which the new
pavilion must be provided, from one year to five years. The reason stated for the proposed
extension was the lack of funding for the new pavilion and the anticipated timeframe required to
raise it.
The application to vary the planning permission was not publicly discussed prior to its submission.
Only limited discussion was permitted at the meeting of Debden Parish Council following its
submission. The implication of the amendment sought to be made to the planning permission,
would continue to prevent the new hall from being available for use until the new pavilion was
erected and available for use. Therefore, the new hall could be unavailable for use for potentially
five years (assuming funding for the pavilion could indeed be raised by the end of the five-year
period).
Sport England submitted a robust written objection to the application on 16 April 2021 as well as
several local residents. The application was withdrawn on 30th April 2021.
As mentioned previously, the base funding for the new hall was a generous grant from the
Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust (AFCFT) in the amount of £236,400. Notwithstanding the
approval of the village for an increase in the precept in order to apply for the £400,000 loan from
the PWLB, the Parish Council did not take any action and the Army once again in June 2020
asked for the grant to be returned. The Uttlesford’s CEO intervened on behalf of the Village Hall
Trust and the grant received a stay of execution until the end of September 2020.
The Debden Residents Community Group, established in July 2020, wrote to all four
parties involved before the end of September in an effort to work together and retain the
grant but the other parties refused to compromise.
Finally on the 30th November 2020 the UDC’s CEO announced publicly at a meeting of the
Governance Committee that the Army had officially asked for the grant to be returned by the
Village Hall Trust to UDC who in turn would return it to the MOD. If the VHT refused to comply,
the usual legal route would be taken by UDC.
However, the Parish Council decided that the application for the PWLB Loan should proceed
without further consultation and that it would include reference to the Grant as available funding
ignoring the fact that the Grant had been withdrawn This became the subject of a public dispute
at Debden Parish Council’s meeting on 7 April 2021 when the Responsible Financial Officer
declined to sign the Loan application form because of its inclusion of the Grant, when in fact the
Grant had been withdrawn and she felt that to do so was untruthful and potentially fraudulent
and the Council should not be asking her to do this. It seems the Parish Clerk/RFO was
suspended in August 2021 and it is widely believed that her suspension and eventual dismissal
in December 2021, were a consequence of her refusal to sign the inaccurate application form.
From the 30th November 2020 onwards the AFCFT’s position did not change and it continued to
request the repayment of the Grant. What happened after that was an embarrassing saga of
legal action and counteraction involving UDC, who should have retained the Grant, had
erroneously handed it over to the VHT and the Trustees protesting that there was no deadline in
the agreement for delivering the project.
In the end, in February 2022, the Village Hall Trust announced that the Grant had been
returned to the Army.
Debden Parish Council had undertaken the public consultation in March 2020 in respect of the
Loan, regarding the increase in the precept which would result from the Loan being granted and
subsequently drawn down. The Consultation cited the existence of the Grant as a significant
source of funding for the new hall and residents voted in the knowledge of the Grant’s existence.
The loss of the Grant fundamentally alters the basis on which the Consultation was conducted,
and therefore makes the Consultation result unsafe
It is not known, as the Parish Council has refused to divulge the information in spite of a Freedom
of Information request by the Debden Residents Community Group, whether permission for the
land exchange was renewed when it expired in November 2022. The Grant was just short of a
quarter of a million pounds, therefore a significant contribution to the funding required for the
project. It is understood that no, or very little, other funding has been raised and therefore there
is no current prospect of the project being able to proceed in any event. In any case, in view of
all the other problems that have arisen from the mishandling of the whole new village hall project,
the proposed land exchange is wholly unnecessary.
So, where does this leave the project of building the new village hall? The answer is quite
simply nowhere unless the Village Hall Trustees adopt the only sensible option of the
alternative, the Purkiss plan, which they signed up to five years ago in February 2017. If they
had kept to this agreement the village would not be in the situation it is today and a new village
hall would have been completed.
The Purkiss plan had planning approval, is much more in keeping with the village and fits
comfortably in its environment.
To sum up, the current project has been badly mismanaged by the New Village Hall Group and
VHT Trustees, aided and assisted by new inexperienced Parish Councillors and DRGT
Trustees.
It is with great consternation that the village residents have learnt, as it was announced in the
Parish Pump, that, unless a number of essential Volunteer Trustees come forward, the
Memorial Hall will have to close at the end of May 2023.