Tagged: Village Hall
This topic contains 48 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Jaden Stanley 4 years ago.
16 May, 2012 at 11:37 am #21452
I feel that I must comment on your postings regarding the Village Hall.
I suspect your “independence” puts you at a disadvantage to the people who signed the complaint to the Charity Commission, who by and large, are members of a range of local organisations and also non-aligned residents.
The submission was NOT from any single group or organisation as you imply; it was a document drawn up from a variety of sources by INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS who do get actively involved in community matters.
Perhaps you would be better placed, and better informed, to comment if you were more actively involved in the community yourself.
Secretary CCA16 May, 2012 at 12:47 pm #21453
As the complaint was signed by a number of individuals by the fact they jointly submitted this complaint they are to all intents and purposes a ‘group’. Likewise the current Trustees are considered a group despite having as you say come from a varied selection of the community. By putting forward possible ways out of this solution I am in effect being ‘active’ in the community. Also I have taken care in all responses not to name any community group or individual likewise as this is a community problem and not a problem between individuals. Personally although it may not ever happen, I would like to see the establishment of a single Community Trust instead of all these smaller groups as at present I do not fully see the expected cohesion one would hope for.16 May, 2012 at 2:37 pm #21454
I signed the petition – which clearly said it wasn’t on behalf of any specific group.
I signed because I saw a constitution and it already gave named village groups the right to appoint a Trustee. It needed updating but it’s still quite workable and already satisfies your “community trust” vision.
Personally I was appalled in late 2010 to hear Mike Rayner admit that he’d spun a yarn about the Hall closing, only to reject offers of help at the same meeting. “Colnbrook doesn’t deserve a village hall” he said then – and given earlier problems maybe that was not without some justification. To a degree he should be allowed some slack, he was instrumental in raising the funds to build and run the Hall for many years and personally inconvenienced by some of the problems. But until 2010 I’d never heard of any resource issue and the “apathy” card doesn’t play well given we now have TWO active community groups!
There’s a lot of divisive talk going on but it comes down to some groups and individuals being prevented from using a largely empty community building. That’s very sad, not least of all for the legacy of those who built it.
Maybe it’s time to let the volunteers put their money where their mouths are. However I for one think it would be a stronger option if Mr Rayner and the other trustees stayed involved to oversee and mentor a new crew.16 May, 2012 at 2:38 pm #21455
This sounds like a sort of Community Trust
‘CCA proposals – 8th November 2010
Appoint sufficient new trustees from “village organisations” in order to enhance the management.
We would suggest two from the PC, two from the CCA, one from each school, one from each church, one to represent the young people of the ward, and one to represent the over 60,s plus any existing trustees who wish to continue.
Any such appointments would have to wait until any outstanding issues are resolved. There is nothing stopping the formation of a “shadow” committee to set things in motion.
Progressing this needs the community to work together for the common good. The above outline, not set in stone, provides a way out of the predicament without allowing any one faction to take over.’
My suggestion took this a little further in that I considered the geography of the Parish as a factor as well so that all the estates can be represented. The hall is for all of the Parish and not just for those living in central Colnbrook.16 May, 2012 at 2:58 pm #21456
I think you’ll find that came before the Constitution was obtained and found to pretty much do that already, but talk to Charles Burke about it – you’re both Parish councillors and it sounds like you’re violently agreeing on this point!16 May, 2012 at 3:08 pm #21457
An example of what we could achieve by all pulling together can be found at
This could be a good model to base the forward plans and ideas to make Colnbrook so much better than what we are currently delivering and achieving. I have personally expressed to the current CVHT team that I am able to help with the hall and as such be active for the community a bit more if allowed to do so of course.25 September, 2012 at 5:00 pm #21359
What has been done to address the breaches of Charity Commission’s rules by the Colnbrook Village Hall Trust since these were brought to their attention nearly six months ago?
Following its survey in July 2010 the newly formed Colnbrook Community Association pledged to make disuse of the Village Hall a priority issue. Yet, by April 2012 Cllr Jones confirmed that no Village Hall Trust meetings had been held.
Following the submission by residents of a formal complaint about mismanagement to the Charities Commission (CC), Trustees complained of “difficulties they are experiencing in the management and administration of the charity”.
Who can shed further light on the latest regarding this important village asset? Has an AGM finally been held? What are the issues and how do volunteers go about offering support?10 November, 2012 at 8:05 pm #21438
Colnbrook Views has been asked to publish an open letter to former Parish Councillor and Chairman of the Village Hall Trust, Mike Rayner: “I would like to remind Mr Rayner whist he is ‘blowing his own trumpet’ so to speak that he has somewhat forgotten that he did not do this alone.”12 November, 2012 at 10:29 am #21439
What a pleasing post. Somebody who along with others was obviously passionate the community at the time. I wonder what happened to put a stop to this valuable work?14 November, 2012 at 2:35 pm #21440
Is there any truth in the rumours that you were involved with these ladies (in the most correct way of course!)in running the football teams?
If there is, do you have any comments on this item?
Jock17 February, 2013 at 10:48 am #21421
Tireless Cllr Charles Burke may be happy at last with the announcement this week that the Village Hall Trust will hold its first AGM in as long as anybody can remember (or is prepared to admit!). But questions remain as to which village organisations will be allowed to be represented on a new committee, with the CVHT referring to 14 “eligible organisations” from a 1990 constitution that gives Bucks and Iver councils a say but excludes Colnbrook’s largest residents group.18 February, 2013 at 2:09 pm #21422
Correction Required !!!
Any comments below are of an individual nature and do not represent any view , comment or decision by the Parish Council
“The current trustees of CVHT, according to the Charities Commission, are: serving parish councillors Bill Jeeves, Barbara Underhill and Howard Jones, ”
Bill Jeeves is not a serving Parish Councillor as far as I am aware, however I did not attend the last Parish Council meeting due to illness and cannot comment further.18 February, 2013 at 2:25 pm #21423
Again as a personal note only.
Although two trustees are serving Parish Councillors the list of 14 eligible organistions does not include another important part of the community besides the CCA. If you re-read the list you will not find the the name of COLNBROOK WITH POYLE PARISH COUNCIL either which should be more included than Iver or South Bucks Councils. So to be fair to both the CCA and Parish Council then either both of them are included or not as the case maybe. However since the Constitution is a legal document then it would seem obvious that you cannot just change things there and then but have to follow some due process to debate, vote to remove existing names and subsequent debate and vote to incorporate new names to the list. Personally I think that both the CCA and the Parish Council have good claims to be included in the list and should be encouraged and adopted into the list rather include one and not the other. We all live and hope to enjoy the facilities available in the village so put all the past history and bad-feelings away and look for a better community spirit onwards from 2013. If you do not give it a try you will never know if it works.18 February, 2013 at 2:58 pm #21424
personal view another correction required.
‘Nominations may be submitted for elected members in advance to Cllr Howard Jones, 19 Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY, or may be made at the meeting.’
The notice that was published on the Parish Council website referes to the nominations being sent to
‘CVHT c/o Howard Jones (CVHT Trustee) 19, Coleridge Crescent,’
I believe that Mr Jones is acting only in his capacity as a Trustee on this matter and not acting on behalf of the Parish Council as suggested by the article
This correction would avoid and confusion as to where the CVHT sits in the community. As far as I am aware the CVHT is not owned or run by the Parish Council18 February, 2013 at 4:41 pm #21425
Something wrong with this !!!
The above article states
Nominations may be submitted for elected members in advance to Cllr Howard Jones, 19 Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY, or may be made at the meeting.
the notice on the Parish Council website states
‘CVHT c/o Howard Jones (CVHT Trustee) 19, Coleridge Crescent, Colnbrook, Berkshire, SL3 0PY,’
Thus nominations are made to the CVHT and not to a Parish Councillor and as such the article should be corrected.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.