Research Into the Funding of Rural Community Buildings and Their Associated Benefits

Research into the Funding of Rural Community Buildings and their Associated Benefits

Final Report ©

in association with

October 2006

Contact: Rural Partnerships Limited

The Quadrangle

Banbury Road

Woodstock

OX20 1LH

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1993 810927

Fax: +44 1993 810849

www.ruralpartnerships.co.uk

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Nobel House

17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

Telephone 020 7238 6000

Website: www.defra.gov.uk

Defra has commissioned and funded this study, but the views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect Defra policy.

Contents

Contents
Glossary
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1 / Introduction / 1
Introduction / 1
Aims of the Study / 2
Research Team / 2
Structure of the Report / 3
2 / Context and Methods / 4
Introduction / 4
The Function and Management of Rural Community Buildings / 4
Contrasts with Urban Community Buildings / 5
Social and Economic Impacts / 6
Funding / 7
Government Policy on the Funding of RCBs / 8
Methods of the Present Research / 9

Funding of Community Buildings and their Benefits / Final Report

Contents

3 / The Benefits of Rural Community Buildings to Users and the Wider / 13
Community
Introduction / 13
Population Served by the Building / 13
Use of the Community Building / 14
Distribution of Use / 15
Activities / 16
Benefits Provided / 17
Other Substitute Facilities / 18
Alternative Meeting Points / 19
Value of the Benefits / 20
Wider Community Benefits – Evidence from our other Surveys / 21
Analysis of Benefits / 23
Conclusions / 25
4 / Funding Provision / 27
Funding Bodies Surveyed / 27
Current and Future Funding Provision / 28
Size and Types of Funding Provided / 31
Application Processes / 32
Conclusions / 35
5 / Beneficiary Experience of / 38
Funding Provision
Introduction / 38
The Building and its Condition / 38
Income and Expenditure / 39
Reasons for Improvement or Replacement / 43
The Capacity for Local Funding / 44
External Funding / 46
Success in Obtaining External Funding / 50
Factors Affecting Success as Reported by RCB Committees / 51
Factors Affecting Success as Reported by Village Hall Advisors / 52
A Quantitative Analysis of Factors Explaining Funding Success / 55
Conclusions / 60

Funding of Community Buildings and their Benefits / Final Report

Contents

6 / Conclusions and / 63
Recommendations
Conclusions in Relation to Specific Project Objectives / 63
Overarching Analysis and Conclusions / 66
Appendices
A1 / Literature Review / A1 – 1
A2 / Reference Sources / A2 – 1
A3 / Detailed Methodology / A3 – 1
A4 / Quantitative Analysis of Factors / A4 – 1
Explaining Funding Success
A5 / Summary of Barriers / A5 – 1

Funding of Community Buildings and their Benefits / Final Report

Glossary of Terms

Glossary of Terms
ACRE / Action with Communities in Rural England
Biffa / UK's largest integrated waste management businesses
DEFRA / Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DETR / Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (no longer in existence)
IMD / Indices of Multiple Deprivation
LA / Local Authority
NALC / National Association of Local Councils
p / Probability
RCB / Rural Community Building
RCC / Rural Community Council
RES / Rural Economic Strategy
RDA / Regional Development Agency
SD / Standard Deviation
SITA / SITA UK is a leading provider of recycling and waste management services in the UK
VCO / Voluntary and Community Organisation
WREN / Waste Recycling Environmental Limited
WTP / Willingness To Pay
VHA / Village Hall Adviser
UI / Unique Identifier
VAT / Value Added Tax

Funding of Community Buildings and their Benefits / Final Report

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Many different organisations and individuals contributed their thoughts, suggestions and opinions to this research and the list is too numerous to mention everybody individually. In the interests of retaining the anonymity of individuals, the report refers only to the group or organisation which was represented.

The study team would particularly like to express gratitude to the following people and organisations:

Action for Communities in Rural England (ACRE) for their invaluable assistance and advice on all operational aspects of Rural Community Councils, Village Hall Advisers and Village Hall Committees.

Miles Templeton (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)) for extracting population and rural classification information from postcode data.

National Association of Local Councils (NALC) for providing information on the operation of the Parish Precept.

All the Rural Community Councils (RCCs) and Village Hall Advisers (VHAs) who participated at some stage of the research process, particularly the 14 RCCs which participated in the postal survey of Rural Community Building (RCB) committees.

The 12 funding agencies who contributed freely of their time to answer the survey of funders.

The consultants would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the RCB committee members that took part in the consultations, including the interviews, focus groups and survey responses and thank them for their time, input and ongoing interest in the research.

Funding of Community Buildings and their Benefits / Final Report

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Basis of the Research

It has been estimated there are at least 8,900 rural community buildings (RCBs) in England. This figure included village halls, church halls and other community centres which provide a range of functions in rural England. For the purposes of this research, only village halls known to Action for Communities in Rural England (ACRE) were included in the analysis.

Most RCBs were managed by a voluntary committee and charged a hire fee to groups and individuals to use the facilities for community events, meetings and clubs, but few generated sufficient income to be able to meet the costs of major refurbishment or rebuild. For this reason, many RCB committees sought external capital funding to enable them to update facilities or to construct a new building. Additionally, in recent years, a range of new regulations have been introduced which have tended to require higher standards of building and facilities, and have therefore increased the need for capital investment (e.g. the Disability Discrimination Act)

The Government attaches great importance to RCBs and believes that local communities have the best understanding of local need and local provision. It also wants to ensure that effective use is made of existing facilities. The key underlying issue for public policy is the strength of the case for the public funding of RCBs. Funding has traditionally derived from local and charitable sources, with only a relatively small amount of support from central government. Funding from the National Lottery has been, and continues to make, an important contribution to RCBs, but many local authorities have reduced their level of contribution in recent years.

Aims of the Study

The study focused on the issues surrounding funding for community buildings in rural areas. It also examined the tangible and less tangible benefits that community buildings provide to individuals, the local communities served by the hall, and to society at large. Information was also gathered on the role community buildings play in facilitating and promoting social cohesion and community capacity building in rural environments.

There were three specific objectives, which were to:

·  explore the aims of applicants in preparing bids and the processes involved, including the assessment of local needs and priorities;

·  identify the factors determining the success/failure of funding applications; and

·  assess the tangible and less tangible benefits of RCBs to individuals, local communities and wider society including their contribution to capacity building and social cohesion.

The research addressed a number of additional issues including:

·  the availability of local funding sources;

·  lessons to be learned and best practice to be shared regarding applications for central Government funding;

·  reasons why funding was being sought, e.g. to meet revenue costs, minor capital repairs, major capital repairs or new builds;

·  whether a local needs survey or audit had been conducted in the community; and

·  the level of central funding being sought and the difficulties encountered in meeting the requirements of the funding bodies or finding a suitable funding source.

Approach and Methodology

The research comprised a number of elements, as follows:

·  semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders and funding bodies with an interest in the management and support of RCBs;

·  an email survey of RCCs was conducted to establish functional data and to procure background information and elicit collaboration in the research;

·  a postal survey of 700 RCBs was undertaken following a series of interviews with RCB committees and a pilot survey to 30 RCBs. 445 returns were received giving a response rate of 64 percent;

·  four regional focus groups were conducted, these brought together key stakeholders from RCCs, hall committees and public sector organisations; and

·  thirty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a selection of respondents from the RCB survey to provide supplementary qualitative analysis and review some key conclusions from the postal survey.

Findings and Conclusions

Benefits of RCBs

In the absence of information on the value of the RCBs from the local populations, various indicators of benefit are possible, including the number of users and the extent of their use; the value to users and the wider local community; and contribution to government rural and community objectives.

Nearly 70 percent of halls were found to be used by less than 50 percent of the local population. This was similar to research by ACRE (1999) which showed that 75 percent of halls were used by less than 50 percent of residents. However, much depended upon the definition of ‘use’ and whether the widespread use of halls as polling stations was included in survey returns. Nevertheless, it appeared that many halls were only used by a minority of the population.

RCBs mainly provided benefits to those that used them by offering low-cost facilities for meetings and other social and educational activities. There were perceived to be particular benefits in remoter locations and to those who had limited access to transport. There were also indirect benefits perceived to users through the opportunity provided for social contact, and the reduction in social exclusion that can be a problem for some residents in rural areas.

The most commonly articulated benefit perceived by RCB committee members was ‘community cohesion’, variously expressed as village halls providing a focal point, bringing people together, avoiding fragmentation and encouraging social interaction. Specific benefits were listed as: social inclusion, community vibrancy; socio-economic regeneration, and saving public expenditure, with a vibrant village hall tending to reduce the need for people to travel out of their village for social purposes.

The ability to reduce social exclusion in small and remote communities was perceived to be the factor that contributed most to the Government’s rural agendas. Many RCBs could deliver a greater contribution to the policy agenda if they expanded services to a wider cross section of the community and became more enterprising. However, most committees did not wish (or felt unable) to move far in this direction because of their honorary position and the constraints imposed by the charitable status of the building.

Funding Provision

A number of key issues were highlighted in terms of how RCBs were funded. The framework of funding available for RCBs differed significantly by district, county and region. Devolution of rural remits to individual Regional Development Agencies may result in very different packages of support in different regions.

The organisational landscape is changing and this will have a very significant effect not only on the way RCBs receive funding, but also on the way grants are decided and managed. Understanding how the funding landscape is changing is crucial if RCBs are to successfully secure grants in the future. The study team concluded that RCBs needed to be recognised within the context of sub-regional plans being developed by local partnerships in order to readily access local funding in the future.

The maximum grants available from national funding schemes varied significantly. The average grants awarded to RCBs were also extremely variable. Nearly all funding bodies would, in theory, cover the costs of major capital works, refurbishments and activities and equipment. However, in practice, grant sizes are often small and therefore restrictive, and the need to obtain co-funding sometimes constrains RCBs in successfully accessing finance. Operational costs and routine maintenance were the least funded activities since it was generally accepted that, once established, an operational income from RCB activities and hall charges would cover running costs.

Eligibility criteria appeared to be relatively unique for each fund, though nearly all organisations required applications to respond to regional priorities. Demonstrating ‘social need’ and ‘community demand’ was required by virtually all organisations. This meant that RCBs and/ or their advisors/ local authorities needed to undertake village appraisals to express how demand was identified and quantified, and how the project would meet a clearly defined need.

The application processes for different funds differed greatly, required a range of different skills (from community consultation to preparation of business plans), and varied in regard to the time taken to complete. Most funding agencies had their own application form, but beyond this, the level of additional documentation required differed for each funding body.

Despite the need by many organisations to submit business plans and to demonstrate how operational costs would be covered, hardly any of the funding organisations interviewed stressed the need for economic outputs as a key success factor. Instead, most of them focused on the need to demonstrate the achievement of social objectives.

Funding Demand and Success

Despite the expenditure on renovating halls in the last ten years, it appeared that 50-60 percent of halls would require major funding (over £50,000) over the next decade. Thus, the study team anticipate a continuing demand for funding for capital projects.

Success in funding applications was determined in part by the amount of funding available, and in part by the case presented. The skills needed for applying for funding were vitally important and this requirement was perceived by the RCB committee members to be to the detriment of smaller communities with a more limited skill mix. The study team considered that any skills related action should also try and widen the perspectives of committees to create a more enterprising and innovative culture where this is currently lacking. Whilst this may not reduce the demands for external funding, it would potentially lead to the greater use of hall facilities and provide wider benefits to local communities.