Ford House plans refused

The three members of the planning committee who abstained should be named in the interests of democracy and accountabilty. Ford House is an eyesore and an embarrassment to the residents of Prestbury and it's very frustrating that a solution hasn't been reached four years after it's closure.

Very good point - how can any of our councillors abstain on such a crucial issue? Do they not have a view, do they not care or do they simply not want to upset fellow councillors?

A well thought-out plan which would have brought some low cost housing into Prestbury and supported the building of a new, badly-needed facility for the youth club and the scouts is rejected; what will we get in its place now, another multi-million pound mansion? That's one thing Prestbury is definitely not short of.

It's always sad to see the demise of mature trees (was no compromise possible?) but one has to ask why there is no preservation order on them if they are so important. And what's to stop a new owner taking down the trees anyway? A very bad decision.

Ok guys. I have read the above article! Please take a look at what happened with St John's Church in Bollington when Tricia Penrose and I bought it.

1. Church was put up for sale. 2. No one made an offer and It didn't sell. 3. Local Vicar didn't want loose local land mark but did want to the local community to benefit for any capital raised from its sale. 4. Local vicar worked closely with full support of local councillors to ensure that the community understood why the church was sold and how they would benefit. 5. Local councillors didn't play by the rule and divide game which left a beautiful building rotting away.

On a separate note, I live in Adlington and in the past every planning application I have had in has been challenged by the local parish council [who incidentally had one member who has been influential in the negativity surrounding Ford House] Should people who live in glass houses throw stones?

We are trying to improve the area and bring the community together and look towards the future?

This is just crazy. I cannot believe people would rather have the building fall down than get it back into a good habitable state. Too much red tape and not enough common sense it seems! We should all be working together to get these places back to a good state!

One of the members of the Planning Committee that voted against the approval of the Ford House application on Wednesday apparently did so because she wished to see the community come together and submit another 'united' proposal that all the residents could support; as she made this plea after the proposal was defeated.

This seems to me to be either naive or a failure on her part to read the planners report; in particular page 34 wherein it states that 1,391 households were sent a questionnaire on the proposal from which 707 replies were received (an astonishing 51% response rate) and 74% were in favour.

I doubt there is any significant planning application in any part of this Parish that could achieve this favourable a response rate.

Consequently, I am quite sure that any subsequent planning application on Ford House that comes before the Planning Committee will not exceed (or probably even match) a 74% resident approval rating and the Planning Committee members' wish will not be realised.

I suspect the Planning Committee just turned down the most supported propoasl we are likely to get and I find it disconcerting to think where we go from here and the even deeper divisions that might develop in our community the longer this unresolved saga goes on.

Why am I not surprised that no decision was reached on this ongoing problem , they move and replant full growing trees on golf clubs in the USA, therefore you can do it here! Answer chop the trees down and the people who abstained might be encouraged to cast a vote or mabe resign even, probably the best option and leave it to forward thinking younger people who will see the replacement trees growing and Prestbury profitting as well.

My major worry is that the planners will eventually pass some sort of plan and cause a major traffic problem in Prestbury and make living in Prestbury never ending a nightmare for the residents of a beautiful village. I want to enjoy living here right now and not in 10 years from now.

I missed a hospital appointment today because I could not exit from Legh Road due to refurbishments being carried out on 2 houses on Legh Road, no problem with the people refurbishing their houses however the builders acting in a cavalier manner could not care less about destroying the grass verges and allowing traffic to leave the road.

We telephoned the council office and they said it was not their problem and we should take it up directly with the builders. Surely the planners should impose some regulation on this problem if only forcing these people to have traffic lights installed.

God help us when they eventually pass plans for Ford House and all the disruption that this will cause. Maybe a nice small park with swings would be the answer, with a post office.

I suppose the Parish council,Amenity Socy and Save Ford House organisation are delighted that they seem to have stopped the planning application for Ford House. What do they offer either plans or finance in return ? nothing. The village are now left with either the Ford house site being sold to a developer with the whole site being lost to the village and the Church or being left in the present state and falling down over the years.I could not believe what I read above, the Village will be the loser in the end which is a great pity as the proposed planning application would have improved the street scene also given the Church control of Ford House .

I think we need a response from those who voted against the application to re-build Ford House?

This is bad news for the village. As has been previously mentioned, this issue has not been divisive, the vast majority of residents supported it. I cannot believe that three councillors actually abstained on arguably the most important topic in the village at this time. These three councillors are certainly not representing the residents interest. In fact I believe they should consider their positions and do the honourable thing as they are clearly not capable of making important decisions. The landowner should now cut the offending trees down and re-submit the application. The whole site is currently an eyesore and I fail to see how the trees can be described as an amenity. Utter nonsense!

This is the best decision and a victory for democracy. The application was too large scale, disregarded trees and conservation, and had a lack of community provision, including a youth club in the plans. This generally flawed application was quite rightfully rejected. As a Prestbury resident, like many others, I should like proper consultation with the wider community. Well done Planning !

As villagers of almost 30 years standing, who have raised 3 children in Prestbury, we are appalled by the attempt to seize and destroy Ford House, to the detriment of village life. The schism that has resulted makes us very sad.

· As far as we can see, the description found on the Prestbury.com website, of the meeting held last Wednesday 1st February, does not mention the second vote which took place. Nor does it say how many were eligible to vote. It is therefore an inaccurate report that could create a misleading impression of the meeting.

· If the web site is truly the voice of all opinions in Prestbury it is surprising that, prior to the date of writing this, there are no anti-demolition opinions to be found in the “comments” site despite the evidence of, to say the least, a high proportion of contrary opinion in the village. Even according to the arguable statistics quoted elsewhere on the site, this should at least amount to a 26% opposing content.

· The only survey that we have seen was one which focussed solely on development at the church and took the sale and destruction of Ford House as a given. It was not an even-handed document. That was in July 2008.

· We have yet to see a survey inviting opinion solely on the destruction of Ford house and the commercialisation of the site, from the whole of the village population.

· Among a mass of rhetoric, some basic facts appear to have been overlooked:

o The impulse to raise money by the sale of the site comes from a narrow sectional interest that wants to create facilities for the current churchgoers but does not want to make the beneficiaries finance this themselves. They would rather betray the trust of the village by selling off Ford House.

o Ford House is frequently referred to as an “eyesore”. The actual eyesore is the hastily erected scaffolding that was flung up by the same group. The photograph on the Prestbury.com website illustrates this. The familiar and much loved building shines through these theatrical trappings.

o Despite all the fuss, I am not aware of anything dangerously dropping off Ford House to date. Of course, things will if this process of wilful neglect is allowed to continue.

o The quoted estimate for the conservation of Ford House has come from the same group. Other, informal, estimates have indicated a dramatically lower cost. Why have we no authoritative figure aimed at preservation?

o Prestbury could well take example from the neighbouring town of Leek, where the whole community has acted to save the old Foxlowe House from a similar fate. This has been achieved by action and contributions from the far less wealthy community. There are many of us who would give time, expertise or money to preserve Ford House, provided that ownership of the building was secured for the whole village in perpetuity.

o A statement from “The Business Forum” condemns Ford House and suggests that it is losing them business. The statement is not signed by the individuals involved. This shallow document speaks for self-seeking people who only want to extract money from the village and who should have no say in such a sensitive matter. It seems they never knew (or have forgotten) how much the buzz of activity around Ford House brought business into the village.

Graham
I attended the Northern Planning Committee meeting last week and I was completely unaware of the second vote you refer to taking place at the meeting.

When did this take place? Who voted and what was the result?

You state that I do not clarify how many were eligible to vote and therefore claim my report is inaccurate and could create a misleading impression of the meeting.

As stated in the article above "Members of the planning committee voted to refuse the planning application by four votes to three with three members abstaining."

To clarify in the vote I reported on, which was the only one I witnessed, 4 voted against, 3 in favour and 3 abstained. As far as I am aware these 10 people were the only ones eligible to vote.

You state that my article "is therefore an inaccurate report that could create a misleading impression of the meeting."

I can assure you that I attended this meeting and what I reported is accurate. I would like to confirm that I am at no point commenting on whether this planning application should had been passed or not, but purely commenting on the process/discussion I witnessed.

You go on to state

"If the web site is truly the voice of all opinions in Prestbury it is surprising that, prior to the date of writing this, there are no anti-demolition opinions to be found in the “comments” site despite the evidence of, to say the least, a high proportion of contrary opinion in the village."

Are you suggesting that I have decided not to publish any anti-demolition comments?

I can assure you that we publish all comments on the websites providing people are prepared to use their real name, are not offensive and provide a valid email address.

Your comment states my article is inaccurate and suggests that I am deliberately misleading readers, which to be frank is offensive.

To reiterate I am making no comment on whether this application should have been passed or not, I am purely commenting on the meeting and process I witnessed, I have never shared my personal opinion on this planning application as it would not be appropriate.

Further to my previous comment, I am in absolute agreement with Graham Heald. Ford House has been willfully neglected and Planning correctly followed rules and refused illegitimate demolition. Like many others ,I do not want years of noise and traffic disruption, so the decision means that the centre of Prestbury will not turn into a building site. It should be renovated and preserved at much less expense than other cavalier, commercially-driven ideas flying around.

The questionnaire only reflected a minority of opinions, but true democracy won at the meeting. A true community initiative will not happen,I fear, but is the best solution, if all concerned have open minds.

May I finally say Lisa Reeves article was an excellent summary of the planning Meeting and showed integrity and neutrality.

Lisa,
The Conservation Area application was considered at the same meeting by the same councillors who voted for Refusal by a large majority.
It should be noted that English Heritage,normally regarded as one of the bastions in the
Defence of our national heritage,oppose the demolition of Ford House.
The building is indeed in a sorry state and one of the contributory factors was the removal,
over 3 years ago, of the boiler in the central heating system. The loss of heating will have
contributed to the deterioration of the fabric of the building.

I have read the above comments. So what happens to Ford House now then? Does 'destroy and rebuild' mean the same thing these days? Does any of the supporting community want to finance the purchase and development? We live in a commercial world guys!

Lisa

I apologise, with respect to the first vote, for saying that your report did not say how many were eligible to vote - but having learned, by hearsay, that there was a second vote, in which a majority (reportedly 9 out of an unknown number of potential voters) voted against the demolition of Ford House, I was, and am, at a loss to understand how many of whom were eligible to vote on what - and why the second vote did not appear in your report. In that context, the epithet of “ inaccurate” seems fairly mild.

As to the balance of your report I reserve the right to my own opinion. That it featured a long post-meeting interview with the leader of the movement to demolish (the vicar) but not with a spokesman for the opposing faction, colours my view. If you choose to be a public commentator you must expect your reporting to be examined critically. Outside of the verbatim reporting of statements made during the meeting, my view is that your report is supportive of the demolition camp.

I expressed my surprise, (your own expression on the outcome of the first vote) on a statistical basis, that there were no pro-Ford House comments on the site. I am sorry if you feel that this impugns you personally, but while, as it appears from your reaction, you are the sole editor of the site, you will run the risk of such concern. That you have now published my comments, and those that agree with them, dispels that concern and I am willing whole-heartedly to confirm my acceptance of your assurances.

Graham,

What would you like to happen with Ford House and is it financially viable?

Lisa,
Please be aware that the Church would only have been within their rights to fell trees if they had obtained planning permission to so do.This is a requirement covering trees within a Conservation Area whether or not they are subject to a TPO.I understand that the trees in question have now been TPO'd

Amelia Tester
As someone who has lived in and loved this village for 30 years it has saddened me greatly to have seen the gradual decline of Ford House.

This once beautiful building lies immediately ahead as one approaches the main road - an imposing sight at the very heart of the village and contributing greatly to it's character.
Consecutive bodies have allowed Ford House to fall into deeper and deeper decay. The building was given in trust to the village of Prestbury and those in whose trust it was placed must now take the blame for it's present state.

Our children had dancing lessons and choir practices in it. It was " home" to the youth groups. Our older residents had their friendship group there and we all enjoyed the Sunday teas. Although these activities are all available elsewhere today, the atmosphere is no longer there.

Clearly Prestbury has many newer inhabitants who do not have the same love of Ford House and who may well have moved on by the time it meets it's eventual demise leaving those of us who remain to witness the full impact of the changes, having lived through complete disruption in the centre of the village whilst building work takes place.

On the subject of the church extension which I agree would be a huge asset, many churches have achieved this project by normal fund raising without having a "Ford House" to sell. Ford House itself is a completely separate issue and the two should not be linked.

If the same lack of care and nurture as has been shown to Ford House were afforded to the historical and valued old buildings throughout the land we would have a very sad and characterless country.

Those responsible for this decline should now reverse it.

Whilst I applaud the decision that Ford House should not be demolished I am at the same time saddened by the whole very long winded and at times vitriolic debacle. What a pity that this entire upset, neighbour against neighbour, friend against friend, has been caused by the few who instigated this situation in the first place.

We have lost the valuable facilities that Ford House offered to the village as a whole, Parish Office, Choir rooms, meeting rooms, car parking spaces (these are at a premium in the village) and last but certainly not least the Youth Club. Ford House would seem to have been deliberately neglected over some many years and certainly since it was peremptorily closed in 2007. Half truths, rumours, and in some cases actual lies have abounded. The removal of the boiler caused the further decay to its fabric.

The figure for restoration that was given was seemingly plucked from the sky - I was told that no "actual" estimates had been given. So where did the ridiculously high figure for this come from? £200,000 was pledged from people in the village before the current recession for the renovation and refurbishment of Ford House, though I would doubt that this figure would still be available in this economic climate. A million pounds was offered by a resident of the village for its purchase at the beginning of all this wrangling but not accepted.

I speak as a long term resident of Prestbury of over forty-four years. I am greatly saddened by the whole matter and, for the first time since moving here wonder if I still want to reside here. All concerned should now put their differences aside and work towards, if possible, the refurbisment and repair of Ford House, thus again offering the village as a whole its invaluable and unique facilities.

It’s very simple not the decision has been made by a democratic vote. We are keeping this beautiful building. Now as a village let’s get it back to what it once was a place for the residence of the village and its visitors to meet and get together. In the past it has been used for the choirs, the youth club, as a tea room parish offices and I am sure many other activities. TOGETHER we can make it work again!!!

One of your correspondents asks what the Prestbury Parish Council, the Amenity Society and the Save Ford House Group is offering in plans or finance. I should remind the correspondent that there WERE plans - and offers of financial help from the community. This followed a meeting of the Church Electoral Roll. Having obtained the necessary number of requests for such a meeting, the Archdeacon duly called the meeting. At that meeting the decision was taken that Ford House should NOT be sold. A democratic vote had taken place. Democracy, however, failed to continue. ( I should remind the correspondent that this was a meeting of the Church Electoral Roll - and not a meeting of the villagers of Prestbury, who had already pledged overwhelming support at a meeting held in a local hotel.)

Mark

Sorry I'm a bit slow replying – I'm temporarily at a borrowed computer in Maidenhead – the sort of town Prestbury could grow into in the right hands.

I didn't set out to take over the movement to save Ford House and I have no intention of doing so. There are wiser and more capable heads already involved – people who have been working for a long time to save our heritage. I just finally got sick of seeing our village messed up by those who subscribe to force majeure and believe that their end justifies any means.

But you did ask what I would do............

As I see it, there are some prerequisites to any attempt to save Ford House:
The building and site must be considered in its own historic right, not as a cash cow to fund sectional ambitions.
Its ownership and management must clearly lie with a body that is answerable to the whole village. Since Ford House is so clearly not wanted by the church, it should be happy to relinquish any claim it makes to ownership.
It must be protected by all legal means.
Three impartial and detailed estimates of the cost required to stabilise the building should be made publicly available. In an ideal world this process would be supported by free advice and preferable terms from willing local companies.
These reports should include estimates of the deterioration in the last 4 years and show causal factors resulting from actions taken so far (e.g. the removal of the boiler, the four year delay) so that those responsible can be held accountable for the appropriate restitution. .

Ford House used to be, uniquely, the location at which the godly and the not so godly came together to enhance the life of Prestbury in many different ways. As well as the Senior Folk, Youth Club and theatre groups, it was used by the church as a choir practice place and for the storage of vestments and music for many decades. Rents were taken for small businesses that operated there – I know not where the money went. And the fabric was not adequately repaired - so I think we all owe the building something.

I have no knowledge of fund raising/grant acquiring procedures but the following seem likely:
English Heritage seems to be taking a serious interest
The national lottery
Bodies that foster youth work and the arts

There was a lot of goodwill and several offers of serious money from those who were keen to restore Ford House in the first place. This was before the economy was in the mess it is today, but if those people are still able and willing, their proposals should be considered first.

If those who know about such things cannot get money from these sources and nothing is forthcoming from an appeal to the village and the church, it would then be necessary to establish how little of the site could be thoughtfully developed in order to repair and re-commission the building, without any “improvements”. Such development would be managed by the village and would raise rents. Thereafter all profit from rents, dues, fees etc (after repayment of loans) should go into a well managed fund to provide for repairs and real improvements.

You asked what I would do – that's it. If it's all too late now – then why not the little park and a post office proposed (tongue in cheek) by Greg Horan

Bravo Graham Heald. I wish you were in charge of EVERYTHING here in Prestbury!

I have hesitated previously to comment on the Ford House situation as others have very eloquently put forward their views.

I was one of the youth leaders involved with the Youth Club over 40 years ago, one of the founders and leaders of the Junior Youth Club (over 30 years ago) and founder of the Pantomime, which sprang out of the Youth Club (over 35 years ago). All of these organisations had their home in Ford House itself or in the Youth Club building at the back of Ford House which was built with the help of many, many villagers over several years of fund raising.

As everyone knows the closure of Ford House and therefore of the Youth Centre five years ago was a terrific blow and disappointment to the Youth Club and Pantomime (who used Ford House for rehearsal and storage of pantomime costumes). When the plans came out for the development of Ford House we soon realised that there was no place for the Youth Club or Panto in the Church’s plans.

The Youth Club felt that they should be compensated for the loss of their building in order that they could possibly add any compensation received to any Community building which could not only accommodate the Youth Club and Panto but other organisations such as Scouts. After almost a year of discussion with leaders from the Church we reached a tentative agreement that there would be compensation (amount unspecified) when the plans had come to fruition.

We then sat back and waited for the outcome - not objecting in principle to the Church extension or the re-development of Ford House, but we did take steps to ensure that the promise of compensation was built in to the Planning Committee’s considerations.
We have been very touched by the overwhelming support from Parishioners for the Youth Club, and their plight was mentioned in many of the submissions and arguments put forward against the development proposed by the Church at Ford House.

I know it is difficult for newcomers to the Village or the Church to understand the strong feelings that many people have, for what seems to them, an almost derelict building. However to those who care about it know that it had a very important place in the heart of the Village. People went there for jumble sales, dancing classes, meetings, choir practice, coffee after Church, Sunday Teas, Mothers Union and many more regular and one-off events. The car park - although strictly a Church car park - was well used by visitors to the village and for weddings and funerals.

Unfortunately Ford House was allowed to deteriorate over years and, as a one time member of the Ford House Committee and of the PCC for many years, I know that many of the proposals to make improvements were vetoed and very little was done.

The reason I am saying all this now is that, like many others, I cannot foresee what will happen next with Ford House. Presumably it will be put on the market and a brave developer will take it on and anything could happen!

In the meantime there has been much dissention and friction between the various factions involved in the discussions. Friendships have been damaged, people have been hurt and it has not been a pleasant time for many people who all, in their own way, were trying to do what they thought was right. This is the time for everyone to pull together to heal the rift.

There must be a hope that the Church, Parish Council, Business Forum and the Village could work together to get a workable solution. Graham Heald has put forward some ideas which should be looked into. I don’t have any solutions or, unfortunately, a hidden stash of cash but there are some very clever people in this Village on both sides of the argument who should take this opportunity to mend fences and work together for a change.

I know that the Church must be licking their wounds at the moment and feeling very angry about the result after all their hard work but, as Christians, they could take the lead in bringing people together to discuss the possibilities and perhaps call a Public meeting to get some ideas. Think how powerful we could be if we all worked together for the good of the Village. The current bad feeling should not be allowed to fester.

Thank you for the reply Graham and I understand your comments. As a none Prestbury person [Prestonian?] you can see there is a clear divide in the village and what a shame! Ford House is a death trap [fact] ...so if we are going to wait for lottery funding [how long will that take] and who is responsible if a tile falls on someone's head? This argument could go on for ever couldn't it?

I think it was the right decision - the plan did not simply stack up and should be redrawn. I also think that people should air their views more carefully and show more respect to the committee members - who had a very difficult and challenging decision to make.

The new proposal should be influenced by the local needs of the residents - perhaps more affordable and social housing for young people from Prestbury and Macclesfield - who are finding it difficult to get on the housing ladder. This should be balanced with a focus/slant towards youth activities - i.e. exactly what is on offer for the younger people in the community ? Could the new plans also encompass a community hall, sports or media centre? It's about time that we moved the community forward instead of living in the past - with a clear emphasis towards supporting the future.

Amelia Tester

In response to Mark Simkin -- As a resident of Prestbury for over 30 years, I have no knowledge of anyone having been hurt or indeed killed as a result of a " Ford House" incident. Perhaps you have such knowledge and can back up your alarmist statement.

The owners are responsible for accidents/injuries on their property.
Hopefully, they have maintained their Third Party Indemnity Insurance whilst spending tens of thousand of pounds on Architects/Consultants fees which at present have been to no avail.
Perhaps a pity these monies were not spent more fruitfully on maintenance work on the structure of Ford House.

To the best of my knowledge it was those very insurers who pulled the plug on Ford House a few years ago; others may well correct me on this, but I am pretty sure it was the condition of the roof which led to the building being shrouded, scaffolded etc on the insurance company's insistence. That not a single tile appears to have fallen before or since suggests the insurers are over-cautious (there's a surprise).

Well, I was clearlywrong about the roof-tiles; I have it on good authority that one came down shortly after the original closure, landing at the front door, whilst a number of others have fractured and some of the fragments have come down. these are big slabs compared to modern tiles. The scaffolding is holding up the left-hand side of the roof, apparently. Apologies to any members of the insurance community out there.

As another resident of Prestbury for nearly 30 years, I also express my dissapointment at the state that Ford House has been allowed to deteriorate to.
It has been a great asset to the whole community & is a great loss of facilities, which people seem to be trying to replace elsewhere at greater cost than correct upkeep would have been..
I can only add that I agree fully with the views of Amelia,Graham and Geraldine.

Further to my recent comments - my suggestion for affordable & social housing appears to be gathering momentum within our community. The local planners also appear receptive to the notion based on the critical lack of appropriate housing stock and development locations within the vicinity. Surely this makes more economic and social sense - as opposed to risks of refurbishing a derelict building - the costs of which (as in most cases of this nature) are likely to exceed budget.

What do you suggest should happen to Ford House? It cannot now be knocked down. Have you an alternative to refurbishment?

As a Christian long-time Friend of Prestbury watching from the sidelines who remembers Ford House from the old days, I’m confused.

Why on earth doesn’t St Peter’s Church just dip into its substantial Reserves, restore Ford House to a usable state, and re-open this valuable asset for the community? The PCC has had the funds to do this for years. It could have avoided this whole sad scenario by maintaining the condition and usability of its valuable investment. That would also have maximised the potential resale value of the site.

The latest St Peter’s Church PCC Accounts filed with The Charity Commission on 6th October 2011 as Charity No 1134136, and accessible to the public via the Commission’s website, show positive Fund Balances of £248,589. These include Reserves of £201,544, and Unrestricted Funds of £129,110.

Those Reserves are defined in the Accounts as “that part of the PCC’s funds that are freely available, and include both Unrestricted Funds and also Restricted Funds for contingencies which can be used following specific authorisation of the PCC”. The Accounts were signed by the PCC Chairman, and by accountants Heywood Shepherd, so we can assume they are accurate. Doesn’t that mean funds are ‘freely available’ for the Ford House ‘contingency’?

Come to think of it, with Reserves of that size, why didn’t they protect their asset in the first place by preventing the needless deterioration of Ford House, and keeping it open for the community? That way, St Peter’s would have magnified its presence in Prestbury, and built its strength as ‘the Christian heart of the community’.

Tim Gresty has raised some very interesting points. Perhaps someone from the PCC or the church might like to reply?

Looking at the PCC accounts mentioned by Tim Gresty it is interesting to note that whereas the expenditure on Church Activities of c£143,000 is broken down into 18 items that for Church Development of c£88.000 is not itemised.
I find it surprising that the second highest item of expenditure in these accounts is presented simply as a total figure without any detail of how it was incurred.
These accounts are for the year ending 31/12/2010 since when another years expenditure on Church Development will have been incurred.

Brian Geddes comments that the expenditure for 2010 Church Development of c£88.000 is not itemized. He expresses surprise that the second highest item of expenditure in these accounts is presented simply as a total figure without any detail of how it was incurred.

Mr Geddes could ask any of the Trustees of St Peter’s PCC Charity for the detail of the expenditure on Church Development. Each is legally required to be “in the know”.

To ensure trustworthiness and transparency, the Charities Act mandates the appointment of Trustees to supervise the running of charities. These Trustees have considerable legal responsibilities, as laid down in the Charities Act 2006.

The following Trustee responsibilities are taken verbatim from the Charities Commission notes on the Act.

• Each Trustee must ensure “the charity prepares reports on what it has achieved and Annual Returns and accounts as required by law”.

• Trustees are “accountable for the charity's solvency, continuing effectiveness and the preservation of its endowments”. They must “exercise overall control over its financial affairs”. They should “ensure that their systems of control are rigorous and constantly maintained”.

• Where a charity owns land or buildings (such as the PCC’s custodianship of Ford House), “trustees need to know on a continuing basis what condition it is in, that it is being properly used, and that adequate insurance is in place”.

The Charity Commission records 34 Trustees for St Peter’s Church (http://www.opencharities.org/charities/1134136). Each and every one of those Trustees has unavoidable legal responsibilities for the operation and finances of St Peter’s Church PCC Charity, and is deemed to have a thorough overview of the financial and operational aspects of the PCC.

If they lack an insight into the proper usage of charity funds for Church Development, then as Trustees they risk a criminal prosecution. I suggest that none of them would be so foolish as to take that risk. So, I’m sure each of them will have the knowledge to reassure Mr Geddes that the money listed for Church Development for 2010 and 2011 has been properly spent and audited. Perhaps he will let us know the results of his enquiries.

Mr Gresty seems to have inferred from my "surprise" that I am questioning the veracity of the audited accounts.
This is not correct.
I am confident the Auditors will have carried out their professional duties in accordance with the regulatory standards.
His advice on the responsibilities of the Trustees of a Charity is enlightening but these do not include the disclosure of information to third parties.

Oh dear Mr Geddes. I owe you an apology. It was never my intention to imply criticism of your worthy thoughts concerning the Ford House debacle.

My intention was to establish that each and every one of the 34 local Trustees of the Parochial Church Council Charity has a clear and legal responsibility to ensure appropriate use of the Charity’s funds, which combine privately-subscribed reserves and public moneys via a Charity’s tax concessions.

You are right. The Trustees do not have a duty to publicise the detailed expenditure on “Church Development” to third parties.

However, each one of them has a legal responsibility to ensure that the Church’s expenditure on the linked Ford House and Church Extension projects is properly and effectively spent - and in particular the heavy expenditure on the abortive Planning Applications for Ford House, which the Church’s expensively-retained planning consultants The Emery Partnership acknowledge as “at no little expense”.

We can safely assume, therefore, that all 34 Trustees have made themselves aware of the detail and dimensions of the PCC Charity’s expenditure on “Church Development”, and the costs accrued and fees paid so far in the failed project to redevelop the Ford House site. As the Charities Commission’s rules over transparency put the Trustees’ names in the public domain, it would be a simple matter for Mr Geddes or any other members of the Prestbury community to ask individual Trustees to share their knowledge of the details of the expenditure on the Ford House site development project, and on the linked Church House extension project in its original rejected design, and in its now-emasculated format.

The Trustees can hardly claim the need to conceal these expenditures, as the funds used in the projects combine community-subscribed funds and tax-concession public support. The 2010 Accounts are publicly available, and the 2011 Accounts will be presented at the imminent Annual Meeting for scrutiny and Trustee approval. Now seems an appropriate time to ask them the question.

Brian Geddes and Tim Gresty make very pertinent and correct observations, which merit proper answers. There are positive fund balances of £248,589, shown in the latest PCC accounts filed, as observed by Tim Gresty. Surely, the most obvious use of some of these funds is making Ford House safe with basic roof or fabric repair. Comments on the future priorities of funds for Ford House are very welcome, as we know plans for demolition were correctly rejected at the Public Meeting. Whilst the breakdown of past spending is interesting, future plans are much more intriguing.

I took one of my regular walks around Prestbury last week, and inspected the state of Ford House from the High Street, from the footbridge and from Bollin Grove. The new edition of Pevsner’s ‘Cheshire’ rightly describes the village as ‘pretty’, and the High Street as ‘handsome’. It complements the way Prestbury Hall closes the vista to the south. Ford House provided an attractive matching backdrop to the north, with a building which, despite not being one of the architectural greats, displayed appropriate Cheshire character and charisma.

What a mess it is now. Its fine stone roof is in disrepair, with rooks nesting through lost slates. Its busy façade and fine detailing are disintegrating, and it hides behind security fences like a detention centre. The whole site is overgrown, and the buildings smeared with moss and discolouration. Instead of providing a congenial balance to more modern Prestbury buildings, it vividly demonstrates the results of the wilful neglect by the PCC. The dereliction of this once-fine building damages the whole presentation of one of Cheshire’s most attractive villages, while its lost facilities deprive multi-faceted Prestbury of a prime community-binding asset.

In abandoning the moral high ground and ensuring Ford House can no longer contribute to the whole multi-faceted vitality of Prestbury, the Parochial Church Council and its leaders have retreated behind their ecclesiastical wall to a lower moral ground. By cutting essential maintenance work on Ford House, depriving Prestbury of meeting places for matters spiritual and temporal, and committing their energy and funds to a modernistic Church extension which is less than adequate for even their own limited purposes, they have left in their wake an unsightly bombsite to mar the centre of a much-loved village.

As a Christian, I am dismayed at their self-centred attitude, and their withdrawal from the wider Christian and non-Christian community served for so long by Ford House. No longer will there be a fine meeting place, where groups of Prestbury people young and old, of all beliefs, creeds and interests can come together under Christian inspiration. I find the treatment of Ford House by a Church that claims on its website to be “the Christian heart of the community” shows insular and self-interested Christianity at its worst.

Prestbury, you should be ashamed of what you have allowed to afflict your much-loved community. As Stephen Mossley correctly suggests of the PCC’s substantial reserves, which extensively outrank those of most other Anglican parish churches : “Surely, the most obvious use of some of these funds is making Ford House safe with basic roof or fabric repair”. I trust this sensible suggestion is agreed at the forthcoming PCC AGM by those on the PCC who allowed this sad situation to develop, and who are directly responsible for such damage to the community and presentation of Prestbury.

Ford House plans refused

43 Comments

About prestbury.com

Contribute

Subscribe

Network

More info