[Joe]

Lymm Youth and Community Centre

Since the original lease expired, the people of Lymm have been in danger of losing their community facility in the village centre. To try to move progress a meeting was recently arranged with Councillors Barr, Marks and Woodyatt from Warrington Borough Council representing, and elected by, the people of Lymm. Lymm Youth and Community Centre Management Committee prepared a Position Statement which the Councillors were happy to agree with a few minor adjustments as set out below:

“In 1966, the Lymm Urban District Council granted a 40 year lease on land it owned in Bridgewater St, to a voluntary management committee led by Sir Oswald Davies, in order that this committee could construct a building for a Youth Centre with money raised by voluntary subscription from the local community, with the intention that renewal of that lease would secure community provision in Lymm for the future. That Youth Centre opened in 1967 and has operated without a break to the present day. It has always welcomed in the wider local community and in recent times it has broadened its title to Lymm Youth and Community Centre.

With local government re-organisation in the 1970s, ownership of the land and the lease on it transferred to Warrington District Council, though provision of Youth Services remained a responsibility of Cheshire County Council and the centre continued to provide a very full 7 day programme for the community. Unfortunately in subsequent years, support for Youth Service provision declined and seems to have been further reduced since Warrington was granted unitary status and Warrington Borough Council assumed responsibility for this provision.

This slow decline seems to have climaxed around the time of the expiry of the original 40 year lease in 2006; and when the Borough Council laid claim to ownership of the building the original committee began to disintegrate and become dysfunctional. People who were involved at that time believe this was due to unreasonable pressure and demands from Warrington BC who they believe had other plans for the site. As a result the lease has yet to be renewed.

A new management committee is now in place and has extensively renovated the building, ensuring it fully complies with current regulations; and already has initiated an expanding programme of use on every day of the week. This management committee has, at its core, several longstanding residents of Lymm with a history of long involvement in many successful local organisations and who have been involved with activities in the building since its inception. This committee is willing to take over management of the building and ensure the provision of a Youth and Community facility in Lymm which is self-sufficient. However to achieve this, it needs the security of a long lease at a sustainable rent on acceptable terms.

We therefore request that we are offered a new lease, with option to renew, based largely on the terms of the original lease and hope that the general principles of this can be achieved at this meeting. We understand that, while Warrington Borough Council has no firm plans, one of the options being considered for the surrounding area might include a prestigious multi-million pound waterside development. We would have no objection to such a development including a refurbished Youth and Community Centre at its heart, if we can achieve a satisfactory agreement today.

We hope that we can, by working together, achieve an agreement which will secure long-term youth and community provision at the heart of the village centre; and together be leaders in service provision in the UK. We would be happy to ensure the credit for these exiting developments was appropriately publicly acknowledged.”

The Lymm Youth and Community Centre Management Committee welcome the co-operative response from the Councillors and look forward to positive developments in the future.

Editor’s note: Officers of Warrington Borough Council are currently offering only a one year lease which excludes the Centre from applying for grants and prevents development.

For more information please contact Neville Davies on 01925-755757

[Bob Barr]

Lymm Youth Club

Statement by Cllrs Robert Barr, Ian Marks, Sheila Woodyatt
who are members of:
Warrington Borough Council and Lymm Parish Council.

A very enthusiastic and hard working group led by Neville Davies has helped members of the original Youth Club Committee bring the Youth Club Premises on the Lymm waterfront at Bridgewater Street back into use. We welcome this.

Unfortunately this has been done in an acrimonious atmosphere in which accusations have been thrown at Warrington Borough Council and the three Borough Councillors which are unfair and untrue. The purpose of this note is to clarify our position and form a basis for resolving the points on which we agree and those on which we disagree.

Ownership of the Youth Club building and the plot on which it stands.

The land at Bridgewater Street belonged to Lymm Urban District Council. In 1966 the land was leased to the four Trustees nominated by the Lymm Youth Club to enable them to build on the site. Under local government reorganisation in 1974 ownership of the site was transferred to Warrington Borough Council. The lease expired in 2006, However, as early as 2004, the Property Services department of Warrington Borough Council tried to begin negotiations over a renewal. Unfortunately there was no longer a panel of trustees able to take on the lease. Negotiations continued through 2006 up to and beyond the expiry of the original lease. These negotiations are still continuing. Warrington Borough Council interprets the lease, their registered title, and the history of the site as giving ownership.

The ‘Neville Davies group’ has publicly challenged this, claims to have legal advice to the contrary and claims that they have grounds for suing both the Council and the Borough Councillors over this matter. No specific charges have been made by the group and the group has provided no evidence of the legal advice they have had.

All three Borough Councillors have made it clear that if this matter requires legal resolution, that must happen and all parties must abide by the outcome so the future of both the building and the club can be settled.

Youth provision at the club

In recent years the youth activities at the club have been provided, somewhat sporadically, by a group of volunteers who also did their best to bring the building up to a standard suitable for use. It has been extremely difficult to do both, so the involvement of the ‘Neville Davies group’ in managing the building was welcomed, by all three Borough Councillors.

However the issue of the youth provision and the best way to deliver it in Lymm remains, which is why we welcome the opportunity that the three year lease offers to test that. The youth club has been in difficulties since the withdrawal of youth worker support under the previous administration at Warrington Borough Council.

Lymm offers a very wide range of youth activities in sports clubs, music groups, scouts, guides, air cadets, church groups and out of hours school provision. It is not unreasonable to ask what the role of the youth club is in the future? We are not saying it isn’t necessary, but a 10 year peppercorn lease on the assumption that there is an ongoing requirement is not a reasonable demand.

Conspiracy theories

The many conspiracy theories which are being put about such as linking the withdrawal of youth support with a desire to sell the site, or any contacts with potential developers are entirely without foundation and could be interpreted as being intentionally defamatory.

It is true that the Borough Councillors did investigate the possibility of a joint development on the site that would have provided a community facility together with a Primary Care Trust clinic or jointly with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. Both fell through. It is also true that the possibility of developing this and other sites on the waterfront to provide enabling development for community facilities and other improvements to the village are being considered and may be put to the public for consultation. The ‘Neville Davies group’ have stated that they are not necessarily averse to this, provided a replacement facility is also on the waterfront or near the village centre.

Community provision

A full list of community spaces used for non-commercial community activities around the village is being compiled. This is because the Youth Club is not the only community centre that needs support. We believe that what really matters is that the right spaces, in good usable condition, are available for all the community activities in the village. It is the activities that matter, not necessarily the buildings in which they are housed.

This is why we are encouraging the ‘Neville Davies group’ to test the demand for additional community space in the building on which they have done so much work to bring it back into usable condition. If such a demand is demonstrated, it will make it much easier to ensure the future of either the youth club building or any replacement or alternative.

It was for this reason that one of the Borough Councillors, when working with the Youth Club committee on a business plan to secure the future of the premises suggested that they should turn themselves into the Lymm Youth and Community Association to widen the user base for the building and to ensure that it is used for community activities for most nights of the week.

Moving forward

It is entirely unhelpful to move forward in an atmosphere of conflict. Warrington’s Property Services staff and the three Borough Councillors are doing all that they can to ensure that the full potential of the Youth Club building is fairly tested. However collectively they have a responsibility to the residents of Lymm and the people of Warrington to ensure that resources are properly used. The government demands this, and the next government, given the state of public sector finances, will not change that. The case for community facilities for the youth of Lymm as well as people of all ages has to be made. If it is, then it should be possible to do something constructive. The preservation of the existing youth club building must be a lower priority than the provision of appropriate youth and community facilities to meet the demonstrable need of the residents of Lymm.


9th March 2010

This post has been edited by Bob Barr: 12 Mar 2010 - 01:03

[squirrel]

Three year lease? Is this so? Not to drop anyone in it, but I was told that a one year lease with a year's inbuilt notice was the case, and that is reflected in Joe's post.

[Bob Barr]

squirrel, on 10 Mar 2010 - 20:38, said:

Three year lease? Is this so? Not to drop anyone in it, but I was told that a one year lease with a year's inbuilt notice was the case, and that is reflected in Joe's post.

Warrington Borough Council Property Services originally offered a one year rolling lease, so there would always be one year to run, until notice was given. This was at a "community use" rate which was about £4000 p.a. calculated as half the estimated commercial rental value of the property. But, bearing in mind the amount of work and money that the new group looking after the Youth Club building have put in, this has been revised to a three year lease at a nominal rent of £1 p.a. However the group is demanding a 10 year lease at a nominal rent.

Warrington Borough Council Property Services staff are offering to meet, and have an appointment with the group, though a number of meetings have been cancelled by the group. It is likely that a legal dispute over the ownership of the land and the building and the group's rights to automatically extend their tenancy, will need to be resolved before progress can be made.

It is Warrington Borough Council's view that three years is enough to test the viability of the new Lymm Youth and Community Association, to demonstrate demand and a viable business plan. The group's view appears to be that without a 10 year lease they cannot get the grants necessary to improve the building and develop the use of the centre.

Warrington Borough Council has had legal advice that the land and building are clearly owned by the Council. Because of this, and the very limited use of the building over recent years, it is obliged to include the property in its Property Review of all Council owned buildings to ensure that it is providing best value to the people of Lymm and Warrington.

Such value is measured either by the value of the service provided at the premises, a rental value or a disposal value. It has been said that this is being done to 'fill a hole in Warrington's budget', this is not the case. All local authorites are obliged, by the Audit Commission, District Auditors and the Department for Communities and Local Government to review their use of all resources, including property, on a regular basis to ensure that the best value is obtained for residents.

I hope that helps answer your question.

Bob

[Inky Pete]

Is it not possible to draw up a 10 year peppercorn lease, as requested by those involved with the Youth Club, but with the proviso that it is conditional on a certain minimum level of Youth activities being maintained throughout the period of the lease?

If it turns out to be the case that the new Lymm Youth and Community Association does not have long term viability, then WBC gets its building back.

If on the other hand, the LYCA is a success and the Youth Club continues to provide a valuable service to the local council tax paying community, then WBC gets its obligation to provide Youth Services fulfilled in an extrememly cost effective way.

The longer lease is essential for LYCA to be able to plan for an ambitious future - 3 years is nowhere near long enough to plan, fundraise for, and implement any kind of major project or programme of service improvements.

In fact, a lease of only 3 years almost guarantees stagnation of services due to a gradual decline in enthusiasm from volunteers and others involved as the uncertaintity about whether "this place will even be here next year" grows.

[squirrel]

Thanks, Bob, that answered my question, and three years at a pound a year is a considerable concession. I'd like to mkae it clear I'm not on either side of the acrimony you describe. I just live in Lymm and have an opinion.

There is one question that's not been answered by anybody. If the use of the building is deemed not to benefit the population of Lymm, then what is being proposed as a replacement to give us additional benefit? Surely if there is a proposal that gives better use of that building or an alternative provision of better facilities, then we should be informed? That would be the best way to resolve the confrontational situation you describe.

It seems logical to me that a population of 12,000+ individuals is entitled to a share of WBC funding and facilities, and yet Lymm doesn't even have a Ladies Loo. There may not be much happening in the Youth Club, but frankly, I don't think that's an excuse to take away our one and only venue. I can't see how it costs WBC any more to maintain an unused building than one in constant use. Quite the reverse.

Therefore it seems very clear to me that the decision on the Youth Club should be taken by the people of Lymm. We should be told of the alternative proposals for spending "our" share of WBC funding and asked to choose what we'd prefer. If we prefer to have a Youth Club available for community use, even if it's not in constant use, then why should we be told we can't have that? Where is this prescriptive decision on what's best for us being taken, and by whom?

I would prefer to see a democratic process including the entire community instead of "the Neville Davies Group" versus "the Powers That Be" in some sort of winner-takes-all grudge match.

[Kevin]

I personally wouldn't want my taxes subsidising a venue that is not being used. It makes no sense. I have no issue with council tax paying for / subsidising the youth club if its being used regularly as a community facility ( or even being rented to individuals for private use ). If it isn't and the village hall is not fully utilised, then the council should sell it. I'm sure you could fit any number of sinks mirrors and chairs that go up and down in it.

My preference is that it gets used of course but not become a white dumbo

[squirrel]

Granted, Kev, but would you rather have your taxes subsidising a venue IN LYMM that is sometimes used, if the alternative is seeing said venue sold, developed into retail and/or residential units to secure more Council Tax and that extra tax along with yours NOT being used to to subsidise anything at all in Lymm?

There's a lot of talk about getting Lymm best value, and if that is achieved by closing the building on Bridgewater Street to provide something else of more value, then I am open to the idea. So far, nobody has put the case for a more effective alternative though. Not even at the initial meeting called to discuss the future of the site. Hardly surprising then if this seems like another cut to the services WBC provides in Lymm.

[Bob Barr]

I am very pleased that this thread has become much more constructive.

The joint message from the councillors makes a clear separation between the future of the youth club building and the future of any set of activities that take place in it.

I must admit, and some people may remember, that when I first became a councillor I described the Youth Club Building as the ugliest building in Lymm which is why I was enthusiastic about the proposals that would have redeveloped it as a joint use building replacing the Lymm Clinic or providing a home for the Citizens Advice Bureau. I was sorry to see those schemes fall through as I have always wanted to see a new shared building or the proceeds from the site used to provide community facilities in Lymm and that is still my objective. I am very hopeful that that will happen.

I don’t want to get bogged down in a technical discussion, which I am not qualified to comment on. It is enough to say that there are many views about the physical state of the building, its suitability for community use, its appropriateness for one of Warrington’s most photographed beauty spots and the value for money that it represents to the community in its present and recent state. There isn’t going to be agreement about these matters as they are all matters of opinion and some considerable emotion.

What I can say is that there is a policy in Warrington that any capital receipts go into a central capital fund and individual projects around the borough can bid against that fund. Money is not diverted to support routine expenditure, so we don’t sell buildings to repair potholes (more’s the pity you might say!). There is no guarantee that money received in one part of the borough will be spent in that part of the borough. However Lymm has not had its fair share of capital projects whatever Helen Jones, the MP for North Warrington may say. There is a strong argument for capital receipts raised here to be spent here, but that would be up to the Council.

I have persuaded the Director for Regeneration to look at what improvements could be made in the village, if that is what people in Lymm want. It is likely that these will be offered for public consultation in the autumn. And this will be a real consultation; nothing will happen if there isn’t public consent.

Also Property Services are reviewing the range of community facilities, whether owned by the Council, the Parish Council, or not, to see if needs are being met. We know that the very busy Oughtrington Community Centre, even after a very successful programme of improvements, needs a new roof. The Parish Hall, which is also very heavily used, needs decoration and the ceiling needs attention. Scouts and Guides are raising funds to rebuild their well-used premises, St Mary’s Church Hall needs work; the list goes on and on.

Whatever happens to the Youth Club there will have to be additional investment in community facilities in Lymm. Most of that is going to have to come from charitable donations, fund raising, grants and user charges. The only other source of funds is going to be Warrington’s capital programme, and funding for that depends on land and property sales or development premiums. Given the state of public finances this isn’t going to change any time soon.

A thriving community life, as well as an attractive environment, are aspects of Lymm that make it such a nice place to live, work and visit. This is why we need a mature discussion with Lymm residents as to how those can be preserved and enhanced. There will be many points of view, vigorous debates and disagreements. We will never satisfy everyone.

Improving community life, the environment, living conditions, and representing local people, is what I came into local politics for, but I am the new boy. Ian and Sheila have been fighting for Lymm for over 25 years, to suggest that they have turned their backs on the needs of Lymm just because they have achieved positions of influence on the Council is very offensive.

As I said, I am very pleased that this discussion is becoming more constructive. Let’s hope that it continues.

Bob

[GAP]

Why can't the scouts and guides hold their meetings at the youth club ? That way they could pool their resources and the youth club would be used.

[Bob Barr]

... or vice versa? Sharing facilities and making full use of buildings, as well as releasing funds for the activities in them is what this should all be about.

[Inky Pete]

The Scouts on Pepper Street already use their building every night of the week, on some nights they have two seperate groups meeting one immediately after the other. There's not really much in the way of capacity there to accomodate other groups too.

Also the Scouts are a self funding organisation who receive no support from WBC (sometimes quite the opposite over the years!), they are staffed by volunteers who worked very hard for many years to raise sufficient funds to buy and equip their own building, I don't really see how members of WBC can consider youth provision by the Scouts and other similar organisations to somehow relieve them of their duty towards providing these services themselves.

[squirrel]

You're being honest, Bob,and the truth is that when the building is sold out from under this community, we won't see any replacement benefits. The best we MIGHT get is a gesture towards fixing the problems with other existing facilities that have problems because they are as cash-starved by WBC as the youth club building.

To be equally honest, I think that just about everyone with a WA13 postcode is sick and tired of the prevalent WBC view that we are all idle, posh and rich enough to pay for everything ourselves, so Lymm is a nice fat cash cow. I have lived here almost all my life and seen systematic reduction of support in almost every possible sector, even though the population has increased enormously. Any MP who thinks otherwise has never set foot here or bothered to speak with a resident!

Whilst I am sure that our local councillors have Lymm's interests very much at heart and will be doing their best as usual, I don't believe anybody has the slightest confidence that WBC will play fair with us. They never, ever do. We would have to be deaf, blind and stupid to not see the money thrown at other areas, whilst we are told we have to raise the funds ourselves to build classrooms and provide any kind of support for our young people.

I'm sure we'd all welcome a constructive plan to redress the balance and provide a genuine upgrade to the facilities and services available in the village centre. Until one is forthcoming though, the situation is going to remain adversarial, because as a community, we really are being forced to take issue. We pay the higher bands of Council Tax, endless new properties are approved here, business rates strangle shops at birth and we get bog all funding whilst watching yet another fancy fountain or modern art installation appearing in the town centre......

[Bob Barr]

I can understand the anger of those in WA13 - i.e. Lymm with the system of local government that has had the village lumped in with Warrington since 1974. I would rather not make this party political, but it was the Conservative Ted Heath government that foisted that particular reorganisation on us.

I am really envious when I visit our twin town, Meung sur Loire, which has a population of only about 8000 but keeps its own business rates from an equivalent to our truck stop and a business park on the edge of their town. They have no pot holes, immaculate elegant street lighting, community facilities to die for, the list goes on.

At least Cheshire County Council appears to have been a bit more fair to Lymm, but Labour controlled Warrington, since Warrington became a unitary authority, allowed our streets to fall apart, street lighting to rot, withdrew youth workers and invested precious little in Lymm. All your complaints are valid.

What is worse that Labour administration didn't even manage to make life better for the people in the poorer parts of the town, while robbing the 'richer' areas.

The current LibDem / Conservative administration in Warrington is trying to do better. But we have inherited an abysmal funding situation, are given precious little by central government because we aren't poor enough and have our business rates taken away. To add insult to injury our Council Tenants, not the richest members of the population in Warrington, have 10% of their rents grabbed to give to other boroughs. What is worse, whoever wins the election, none of this is likely to change (except the rents which we might be able to keep).

No political party is offering, or can offer, Lymm the opportunity to run itself again, though all three Lymm Councillors are campaigning for more control over our own services here under Warrington's neighbourhood management scheme.

The Parish Council has a tiny budget and very little power - though it would be nice to see more power devolved to it.

So we are where we are and engaging positively with WBC is likely to be much more effective than wishing it didn't have so much influence over matters in Lymm.

This post has been edited by Bob Barr: 12 Mar 2010 - 00:37

[Bob Barr]

Joe Griffiths, Chairman of Lymm Parish Council, has asked me to point out that the statement I posted from Ian Marks, Sheila Woodyatt and myself was a little ambiguous and some readers may have interpreted it as being a statement on behalf of the whole Warrington Borough Council and Lymm Parish Council.

It is not, it reflects the views of the three of us and it was intended to indicate that all three of us are members of both Councils.

Apologies to anyone who felt misled.