The intention of undertaking this audit and review of the Project is to provide a concise documentation of recent history for future reference and to offer lessons and help to others who may be embarking on a similar undertaking.
This is not a financial audit, although finances will inevitably be discussed, but it is a critical evaluation and commentary of how this project started, the course it took, the events that influenced it and the conclusions reached. The intention is to make it readable, and hopefully enjoyable, so that future generations will be able to recall what happened.
Furthermore we hope that by making it available to all, those who are faced with a similar challenge can learn from our story, including its mistakes and successes.
It is prepared in the knowledge that as a group we helped St George's, through faith and community, to meet a huge challenge and succeed.
The St George's Development Project was conceived in 1993 as a means of the church on Wash Common meeting the challenges presented by the needs of the local community and using the space available to it within its available land.
A community needs survey had identified the requirement for a variety of meeting spaces to satisfy the many groups and societies that could and would be supported by the local community, both within and outside the church.
The whole project included:
The PCC, led by the vicar at the time (Rev Malcolm Strange), developed its thinking about what was required. This had followed a review of the needs of the whole community of Wash Common and the opportunities that new and existing facilities at St George's might be able to provide. The document resulting from this review formed a useful basis for development of the proposals in the subsequent years. At an early stage in the process it was decided that professional advice was needed. This was inevitable when proposals involving the Church building itself were included. In Appendix 1, Peter Skeldon outlines his recollections of this early period. As with many things, the actual start is never clearly discernible and therefore there may be others who recall slightly different beginnings.
After the PCC decided to pursue the ideas for the Project a small working party was drawn from PCC members and others in the worshipping and wider communities. After initially having two groups (Project and Finance) they were re-organised into the Project Management Group (the PMG) under the chairmanship of Peter Skeldon. This group developed the ideas for the project into concrete proposals and reported regularly to the PCC.
The PMG was given the responsibility of developing the designs and specifications for each element, setting budgets and reporting contract costs, and recommending the appointment of main contractors for each phase of the Project. The Chairman of PMG reported to PCC and obtained instruction and guidance as necessary.
The change to the structure in 1995, illustrated below, created separate teams to deal with specific topics and each team leader attended PMG meetings and reported progress and actions/decisions required.
This structure enabled many more people to be involved in a more formal way, particularly those with specific skills but limited spare time. This was the structure for the rest of the Project with members and leaders of various teams changing to suit the particular circumstances of the Project and skills available. Development of the plans
Once the initial working group had distilled the ideas of what was required, an Architect was appointed to undertake feasibility studies and, following broad acceptance at an open meeting, draft initial proposals to meet the needs of the brief.
After consideration of various options the full proposals were prepared for discussion with the parish as a whole at another open meeting. At this stage, particular emphasis was laid on the design of the Hall and comments were sought from all quarters.
Important questions were raised about these proposals at this meeting, to the extent that the Architect was asked to redraw the scheme taking account of the suggestions made. There were two fundamental questions that changed the layout completely. Firstly, whether the orientation of the Hall would enable simple extension if capacity needed to be increased in the future and secondly, whether the kitchen could be accessed easily for delivery of goods (food and drink), a fundamental function of community halls. After the plans were redrawn, they were accepted in principle and the scheme moved forward. The practical operational issues are vital to the success of any design and the professionals do not always know best when considering the detail. Defining the budget
When the scheme was finalised the Architect in conjunction with a professional Quantity Surveyor prepared an overall budget. The appointment of a Quantity Surveyor, although adding to the costs, was deemed to be a necessity. It gave some comfort to the PMG in assessing the potential costs as well as likely areas of savings if necessary.
The Quantity Surveyor reviewed the provisional specifications and scope of works and produced a full assessment of the costs for each major element. This was considered by the PMG, who identified cost savings that would need to be made and was then revised.
The finally agreed budget for the project was £500,000 (incl all fees, VAT etc). As any church community knows, the task of raising money for the daily life of the church is endless. Almost every church community at some time also has to face some substantial building or repair project not of their choosing (usually the roof or the organ). Until this development project, St George's had been fairly fortunate in this regard and so any extraordinary sums above the nominal £50,000 annual running costs had been limited. So to face a challenge of raising ten times this amount as well as keeping the church running was enormous.
The first steps were to obtain formal approval of the plans, first from the PCC, then from the Diocese ("Faculty") and finally from the local planning authority. Fortunately, the church is not listed and is not in a conservation area and therefore we did not need to obtain approvals from bodies such as English Heritage.
Faculty and planning approvals were run in parallel in order to reduce time delays. However we still had significant fundraising to do before any start could be made. Once the scheme had been finalised we could embark on the process of selling the whole project to the church congregation, as well as to the wider community in Wash Common. There was great enthusiasm from many quarters and a tremendous amount of energy was expended. Robert Bigg controlled the publicity and Terry Rayson was part of the early fundraising events. Tom Linley embarked on his challenge to tackle Charitable Trusts.
At this stage PMG also realised that many people could not read design drawings or visualise the proposals properly. It was decided that a scale model should be made and Tony Calvert undertook the task. This proved an exceedingly useful aid as it not only brought the scheme alive but it also highlighted an element of the design that was unacceptable a storeroom in the Hall required a flat roof. This was to be avoided, as the long-term maintenance of such a feature is always problematic. The Architect was instructed to change the design to remove the problem. If this had not been discovered at such an early stage (before submission for planning approval) the costs of alteration at a later date would have been considerable.
As well as the physical activities, the challenge set before us was also founded on prayer. Helen Burch and Elizabeth Pook took leading roles in developing our prayer life to underpin the work on the project. Appendix 8 contains a useful summary of the lessons to be learnt from the Book of Nehemiah. This was drafted completely independently by Terry Winrow near the end of the Project. When we read it we were amazed at how closely it followed our own experiences during the whole process, and is a useful guide based on the teachings of the Bible. That great builder of the walls of Jerusalem experienced much of what is recounted in this review.
The original design. The plans as accepted by the PCC, and approved by the Diocese and Planning Authority, provided all the facilities that we could want in the church plant as we saw it at the time. One important aspect of the scheme and a reason for discounting some of the options in the early stages was to keep everything on one level to allow easy access for all. Access and toilet facilities for the disabled would be provided in the Annex and Hall.
It is important, however, that plans are not followed slavishly over a long period otherwise you might not end up with what you really need, expending a great deal of effort in the process. It is also important that, where possible, flexibility is maintained in each phase to accommodate changes in need over time. The PMG kept all aspects of the project under review until construction contracts were awarded and then any changes were only made if absolutely necessary. This is an essential rule if costs are to be kept under control.
The task of raising the staggering sum of £500,000 seemed impossible. The worshipping community had attempted nothing like it before. Previous development, the building of the church itself, had been achieved with substantial assistance from bequests and the sale of land. It was clear from the beginning that such a major sum of money would take some time to be raised and to wait till this had been achieved would take too long. It was important to show that progress was being made so a strategy was developed to enable work to start very quickly.
The project was therefore divided into phases. These were chosen on practical grounds (physically linked elements of work avoiding waste) as well as on psychological grounds (showing progress and providing benefits to the most number of interested people). The original phasing therefore comprised:
| Preliminary phase: | Internal reordering including the forward moveable altar, repositioned communion rail and improved sound system. |
| Phase 1: | Annex and North Entrance to provide alternative meeting space to meet the needs of some of the existing Hall users, provide the new office enabling more effective organisation and enclosure of the north cloisters providing robing rooms and a warmer welcoming entrance. This element had a mix of church and community benefits. |
| Phase 2: | New Hall and south side car park replace the existing hall thus providing improved community facilities. |
| Phase 3: | New lighting for the church and interior and exterior decoration, together with repairs to existing north side car park. |
This phasing arrangement was not widely published outside the PMG and PCC so that changes could be made without requiring major explanation. This proved to be a sensible strategy. The basic scheme is shown in Appendix 2 Illustrative Drawings.
The programme for the works was clearly predominated by the availability of funds. The brief to the PMG was to complete the project in five years and debt-free. The phasing of the work meant the timetable could be achieved but all depended on the rate at which funds were raised.
In simple terms we only had to wait till there was sufficient in the bank before committing to expenditure. However, with a range of tasks and differing scales of cost spread over at least five years, we realised early on that it was cash flow that was most important. If we had waited till all the money was in the bank we would only be starting now (2001), rather than celebrating completion. At each stage, therefore, the PMG reviewed the cash flow to determine whether sufficient funds would be available before asking the PCC to commit to a further phase of work.
The timing of the work was not entirely driven by absolute certainty of funding. As a Christian group we did put our faith in the Lord to provide. And He provided the whole community with the strength and resolve to achieve the goal He had set us. We were able to commit to expenditure with sure knowledge that ultimately the funds would be secured, even though some were only scheduled to be paid two or three years hence.
Having set an overall budget for the project, it was then divided into the various phases. It was thus feasible to keep track of the costs for each phase and maintain awareness of the consequences of budgets being exceeded. In this way decisions could be made in the context of the whole, without detracting from the needs of any particular element under review. In retrospect, we did not keep strictly to the £500,000 total budget. Each element was considered on its own merits within its own budget.
This became an essential tool for maintaining awareness of our potential to undertake any particular element whilst also ensuring we had sufficient funds to meet any contractural commitment.
As each element came forward for consideration the PMG reviewed the funds available and those already committed. We made it a clear premise that no commitment would be made unless we had the funds secured. Whilst each element was considered on its own we made sure, through the cash flow forecasts, that any committed expenditure was not compromised. In the construction business it is easy to lose track of sums of money that are owing some time after the work has been committed or, indeed, completed. Simple issues such as 52 week maintenance periods and payment of retention money can easily lead to unexpected cash flow problems unless they are properly tracked.
Glenn Wycherley describes the financial control tools we used in more detail in Appendix 3.
Making a start. The phasing arrangements had put the emphasis on an early start with a relatively inexpensive element. This would show immediate commitment to the whole whilst also bringing early benefits. We recognised that the Preliminary Phase would primarily benefit the worshipping community and this is where the major appeal for funds was targeted.
This was successful and within a short time a contract was awarded to D&J Cole and work commenced. At the same time Peter Burch undertook the installation of the new sound system (which he had designed). So, 9 months after the Development Project was accepted, the first element was completed. This was an important milestone for the worshipping community as it demonstrated that through concerted action things could be made to happen.
Condition of the old hall. Soon after completion of the Preliminary Phase (described earlier) the conditions in the existing (old) hall had deteriorated to such an extent that it was deemed to be unsafe and had to be closed. This changed the emphasis on the phasing and it was decided to proceed as soon as funds allowed with Phase 2 (now Phase 1).
Achievable goals. Having decided on construction of the Hall fundraising was stepped up to enable a quick start to be made. There was a delay of about 6 months before work actually started but the clear need for the facility made publicity and fundraising appeals very effective. This was a huge target to aim for at such an early stage. However, because of the desperate need it could not be allowed to fail.
The new hall was completed within 2 years of closure of the old hall and both the church and wider communities could see what could be achieved. The change to the original phasing also made us look at the work elements more closely. The costs for the Hall had been more than expected and a number of features had been removed to bring this element closer to the original budget and the contract was retendered. This made us more cautious about the future costs as well as the potential for completion of some elements. The completion of the Hall was a major milestone, an achievement in its own right as well as being the most significant element of the project.
It was expected that we would find such enthusiasm after this huge goal had been reached that within a year we would have sufficient funds to be able to move on to the construction of the Annexe and the interior lighting and decoration.
However, project fatigue gripped the community and delayed real effort for a whole year. This also made us reconsider the overall project content if we were to have any chance of claiming completion in a reasonable timescale. In adopting this cautious approach we identified that we should reduce the scale of the project and proposed to the PCC that the works to the north entrance and cloisters should be deleted completely. It was not a vital element and could be undertaken at some future date if it was necessary. This was agreed and in so doing the completion of the project became much more likely.
After the first few fundraising activities it became clear that our work needed to be easily and consistently identified to avoid confusion with other work and activity in the community. A project style and logo was developed and used consistently in all communications. This proved very successful and helped in keeping the message loud clear.
Using the logo, it was easy to immediately attract attention to any notice, article or newsletter about the project. The church community was kept informed through the monthly Parish Magazine as well as notices on church notice boards and handouts. The wider community received newsletters on a quarterly basis advertising progress and forthcoming events. The logo was also used for direct appeals as a means of identifying the work requiring support.
Regular contact was made with the local press and broadcast media with varying degrees of response. Coverage was erratic but generally good prior to or after key fundraising events.
Robert Bigg describes the publicity aspects in more detail in Appendix 5.
The congregation were clearly to be major contributors to the financing of the scheme. We also recognised that it would be necessary to obtain genuine commitment over a long period in the form of covenanted giving specifically for the project in order to maximise returns from the Inland Revenue. In 1993 a direct appeal was made to the congregation as well as to the wider community. This was targeted at Phase 1 the new Hall and was very successful, generating nearly £20,000 over four years, predominantly from the congregation although a significant amount came from the wider community.
Fundraising events are excellent at raising spirits, enthusiasm and publicity but they do not generate large sums in comparison to the effort involved. However, they must be arranged and are almost always good fun. Terry Rayson describes some of the successes and failures over the period in Appendix 4.
It was recognised at an early stage that in order to meet our target our fundraising net had to be spread as wide as possible. I have mentioned the wider community already and they were also drawn into as many of the events as possible.
We also determined that we needed to obtain a good proportion of our funds from Charitable Trusts. This is a major task, not to be tackled lightly or without a strong will. The same efforts were used to apply for grant funding from the local authorities and the National Lottery, all with good success after considerable effort.
We also believed there should be a reasonable chance of success from appeals to local businesses. This proved to be much harder than expected and also required unstinting effort which over the five or six year period we were not able to sustain and had only limited although important success.
Tom Linley describes the highs and lows and some of the lessons in Appendix 6.
The project could not have been the success it was without the involvement and support of the local community. It was always the intention that this would be a Community Project and it was essential that the local community was part of the whole process. We were lucky to have the early support of our community policeman Dave Stubbs. A well known figure in the area he helped in the communication to this wider audience. Dave gives an overview of his input and the results of the involvement of the wider community in Appendix 7. His thoughts are summarised in the following extract from Appendix 7:
It has been a great privilege to have played a small part in helping to bring the involvement of the wider community into play. So satisfying to hear a fairly hard nosed and cynical colleague remark with some pleasure as we drove past in a police car one day "Do you know Dave, there's a couple of bricks in there with my name on them!". Such a pleasure to see the long history of Wash Common come to life in the 'October Revolution' and to know that we have been a part of this unfolding story of local people working together, contributing 'talents' as appropriate, to make our community a better place. So rewarding to hear passers by comment on how much they admire the new building and how sympathetically it matches the vision of the original architecture.
But, best of all, to see the diverse range and age of people coming and going, enjoying activities and socialising in such an excellent environment, and even if the group or activity has no direct connection with the church, knowing that they have come to the church for what it can offer them without realising it, and that this is now a very special place to many more local people as result.
Over the period of the Development Project the congregation never really gave up on their faith in the goal. Having this single goal acted as a great unifier for a congregation that had in the past seen its fair share of arguments over courses of action and community outreach strategies. It is essential, however, that the vast majority is in agreement with the scheme. This could be seen when the proposals were brought forward for the new lighting in the church.
The church is a public space that has deeply personal attachments. Individuals all have their own view of how they want it to be. The new lighting was a means for them to achieve their heartfelt desires. The proposals evoked a huge array of differing views. In the end a compromise is inevitable and the final scheme goes a long way to meeting everyone's aspirations.
The saga of the project, its ups and downs, its plans and strategies and its successes and failures are captured very well in the summary of points from the Book of Nehemiah in Appendix 8.
After all this review the basic message can be summarised in this series of points provided by Peter Skeldon, first Chairman of PMG.
Although a number of people have been mentioned in this document, it is not possible to mention everyone who has played a part in the success of the Development Project. Those who are named have been particularly involved in the day to day issues, progress and decision-making. Their names are included to enable contact to be made directly if anyone reading this would like to know more about any particular aspect.
As Chairman I would like to thank everyone who had a part to play, no matter how large or small, as without this support my task would have been infinitely more difficult. Every contribution of time, talent or money that went to the progress of the Project was valuable. Thank you very much.
BRUCE BLAINE
Chairman
Read this report as a Word Document here
Our thanks to the following business & charity donors to the Development project.
