(121 responses)

(28.9%)

(71.1%)

(52 responses)

(15.4%)

(84.6%)

(24.9%)

(75.1%)

The focus of most of those who live in the Matterdale Valley is, and has historically been, to the north, as travel to such places as Penruddock are easier.  The only connection to Watermillock via the Hause which can be difficult in Winter, busy in Summer and impossible by bicycle by all but the fittest.  Should the decision be not to build the facility then I would urge MSF to maintain the funds at the present level after taking inflation into account and to consider future applications from Penruddock, Mungrisdale and Greystoke for funds from the investment over and above inflation.

Research suggests that the facility would be of interest to those outside the valley because of its setting.  It also has the potential to be well used by those in the Matterdale ward, although it will take a time to build up support given the damage caused within the community in recent months.

At the very least, if funds were limited, it would be good to have a car park.  This would be particularly supportive of the church but also, with signposting/interpretation board it might provide access to Gowbarrow (could an enquiry be made for a permissive path to join the path from Ulcat Row?) Car parking would be by payment with exemption for residents of Matterdale and perhaps a ‘green card’ (to encourage exercise and enjoyment before 09.00 and after 17.00, for example).  If payment systems are too complicated, at least an honesty box.

In my experience, trust funds provide limited longevity and if most target groups and individuals are young people, in a community such as Matterdale where housing is expensive there is a restricted sphere of those who might benefit.  However well administered the funds are (and CCF are very good) often trustees spend more time trying to spend the money and worrying about how to spend the money than the time spent on benefits by residents.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond about the Matterdale School Foundation.

Furthermore, I believe the alternative proposal, to use the funds for grants, is a very unsatisfactory option which will primarily benefit individuals and/or specific community groups who apply for funding rather everyone in the community, now and in the future. There is a high risk that those who know how to operate the system would benefit from the grants, and those most in need would not – you would have to know about the grants and how to apply for them to benefit, whereas a village hall would be visible and open to all.

I urge the community to come together behind this deeply needed resource for the local Matterdale area. We owe it to future generations of Matterdale residents to use the available funding to create something lasting and open to all; grants would benefit the few, not everyone.

Subsequently these individuals have all been central in the ‘Matterdale Petition’ group. The timing, the tone and the misleading and manipulative nature of the activities and opinions circulated by them are a clear attempt to sabotage years of work by the community and thousands of pounds of investment by the MSF to re establish the Matterdale community building.

This process by the MSF, despite what the ‘Petitioners’ infer, has always invited all members of the community to engage in and comment on proposals – something which the ‘Petitioners’ did not do with their own opaque lobbying and canvassing. The MSF has always made the results of any community feedback available to everyone  – again not something that the ‘Petitioners’ are doing. Many parishioners who either were not invited to sign the petition, or to view its contents, or were invited and refused to sign have subsequently not been party to the opinion and gossip circulated by them. Their email updates have been nothing but attempts to undermine trust in anyone supporting a replacement community building or the work done to date in trying to achieve this.

From October last year I have witnessed personally the confrontational and antagonist tone of this small opposition pressure group first hand. The talk of dividing the community has now sadly manifested itself, not only with the misleading petition and emails but with the disruption and manipulation of the workings of MPC and the MSF. How can MPC retain any credibility as the sole trustee of the MSF when it has co-opted two of the ringleaders from the ‘Petitioners’ into its ranks. This is absolutely unacceptable – it has been obvious recently to anyone paying attention that there is a majority bias in the MPC against the replacement community building, in no small part due to glaring conflicts of interest which have never been declared.

Just one example – we now have a situation where one quarter of the councillors are also trustees of Watermillock Village Hall, an organisation which since this vote opened has openly told the community of it’s opposition to the replacement Matterdale community building and mislead people on the history of attempts at cooperation between MSF, WMVH and MCA.

MPC have actively avoided clarifying or correcting any of the misleading information circulated in the last 6 months, I fear now we will have to look back on many wasted years of work by committed and genuine members of this community, and thousands of pounds spent on securing planning permissions, all because of this sabotage and subterfuge.

The replacement of the Matterdale community building has been a process that has received the backing of the community in open and independent consultation. The vast majority of the capital held by MSF has come to it on the understanding that a replacement community building should be provided. I’ve heard a lot of slippery justifications why this doesn’t have to be followed through but the principal is absolutely clear – Matterdale lost a village hall and as a result the MSF received a significant amount of money on the understanding that it would replace it. MSF subsequently changed it’s charitable objects to make this possible – with support of the community to do so.

If MPC now now look at vague and ill defined alternatives that are as yet unknown, not disclosed, and also quite possibly outside the mandate of the MSF objects MPC are not carrying out their duty of care as sole trustee of this charity.

It is a matter of extreme regret that a small number of articulate residents, opposed to the village hall, have orchestrated a negative campaign in an attempt to appropriate these funds which they themselves have not earned. Their alarmist campaign has been devised to implant uncertainty and fear within the community. The fear that the Matterdale Community Hall project is not viable, will increase the cost of the precept, and/or may undermine the viability of Watermillock Village Hall – leading to it’s closure.

The alternative proposed is that of a Trust fund. This alternative whilst appearing laudable, by it’s very nature, will be of limited benefit and to only a small number of residents. It cannot bring the community together in joint community enterprise, celebration or commemoration. Nor will it facilitate a base providing educational opportunity to students from outside of the parish but within the County. This provision of facility being a key undertaking to the organisations from whom the funds were pledged and facilitated.

Ultimately, it is a matter of trust. Faith has been placed in this Parish Council by committed residents, important and influential outside Benefactors and Authorities, anticipating the fulfilment  of these solemn commitments. Specifically and solely to provide and build this vital facility for the advantage of ALL Matterdale residents, together with consideration to the broader Cumbrian and National educational community.

In terms of community space generally, I am confident that there are sufficient other spaces available in the local area that mean the absence of a village hall in Dockray and Matterdale is not detrimental to community life.

I think it is important that the scope of activities to which the annual investment income can be applied is not made too narrow, to allow a wider freedom to support projects and investment for the greater good of the parish and its residents throughout the years.

A trust fund means money can be used by the community without depleting the capital invested and without the need for community fund raising.

The original fund was to benefit the children of the valley. The proposal of a village hall is disrespectful of the benefactors wishes.

First, I do not believe the choice has been set out correctly.  It is not a binary choice. In my view, the right way to proceed is for MPC/MSF first to decide whether building a new Community Centre is financially feasible, both in terms of the capital cost and the projected subsequent running cost.  If it is feasible then it should proceed.  If it is not feasible, then MPC/MSF can proceed to look at other uses for the money within MSF’s objects, including the option of a trust fund as set out in the documents.  In other words, the choice should not be either/or: it can be first one and then the other, if the first can’t go ahead.

I say that MPC/MSF should look at the community centre option first because a very large part (at least) of the funds currently held by MPC and MSF arise because of an expectation (to put it at its lowest) over many years that a community centre would be built to replace the community facilities previously lost.  The largest element of the funds, the sale proceeds of the “New School”, only arose because the LDNP gave permission for a change of use of the building so that it could be sold as a dwelling.  The LDNP also gave planning permission for the construction of a new community centre as an exception to its usual approach to new building on green field sites because it wanted to support the community.

Second, I do not believe it has been made clear in the papers that Watermillock Ward residents have no interest in the proposed trust fund.  The MSF beneficiaries are limited to Matterdale Ward.  The only interest Watermillock Ward residents have in this debate is the potential use of Parish assets – namely the recreation field – in the construction of the new community centre (and, of course, the potential for them to use the new centre, if built).  I feel there is a material risk that Watermillock residents could choose the trust fund option without realising that they cannot benefit from it.

Third, the two options are not equivalent.  Option 1 is a fully worked-through proposal for a community centre. Option 2 is vague and amorphous as presented because it is not clear how any grant process would work. Indeed, the survey papers themselves state that the proposed criteria are in draft form as they require ratification, legal advice, and a change in objects!  Nowhere do they state that the objects, unless changed, limit the grant giving power to young people resident in the Matterdale Ward.  In short, in choosing Option 1, people know what they are getting (if feasible).  In choosing Option 2, they have no idea what they would get.

Finally, Option 2 is not, in practice, the only alternative if the community centre doesn’t go ahead.  Grants are not the only other use of the money permitted by the objects.   I consider it would have been more helpful if the papers had included the objects and simply explained that, if the community centre does not proceed, MSF and MPC would have to consider alternative uses of the money within the objects, for none of which was there a current worked-through plan.

However, this choice has not been set out correctly.  It is not a binary choice. In my view, the right way to proceed is for MPC/MSF first to decide whether building a new Community Centre is financially feasible, both in terms of the capital cost and the projected subsequent running cost.  If it is feasible then it should proceed.  If it is not feasible, then MPC/MSF can look at other uses for the money within MSF’s objects, including the option of a trust fund as set out in the documents.  In other words, the choice should not be either/or: it can be first one and then the other, if the first can’t go ahead.

I say that MPC/MSF should look at the community centre option first because a very large part (at least) of the funds currently held by MPC and MSF arise because of an expectation (to put it at its lowest) over many years that a community centre would be built to replace the community facilities previously lost.  The largest element of the funds, the sale proceeds of the “New School”, only arose because the LDNPA gave permission for a change of use of the building so that it could be sold as a dwelling.  The LDNPA also gave planning permission for the construction of a new community centre as an exception to its usual approach to new building on green field sites because it wanted to support the community.

Second, it has not been made clear in the papers that Watermillock Ward residents have no interest in the proposed trust fund.  The MSF beneficiaries are limited to Matterdale Ward.  The only interest Watermillock Ward residents have in this debate is the potential use of Parish assets – namely the recreation field – in the construction of the new community centre (and, of course, the potential for them to use the new centre, if built).  I feel there is a risk that Watermillock residents could choose the trust fund option without realising that they cannot benefit from it.

Third, the two options are not equivalent.  Option 1 is a fully worked-through proposal for a community centre. Option 2 is vague and amorphous as presented because it is not clear how any grant process would work. Indeed, the survey papers themselves state that the proposed criteria are in draft form as they require ratification, legal advice, and a change in objects!  Nowhere do they state that the objects, unless changed, limit the grant giving power to young people resident in the Matterdale Ward only. In short, in choosing Option 1, people know what they are getting (if feasible).  In choosing Option 2, they have no idea what they would get.

Finally, Option 2 is not, in practice, the only alternative if the community centre doesn’t go ahead.  Grants are not the only other use of the money permitted by the objects.   I consider it would have been more helpful if the papers had included the objects and simply explained that, if the community centre does not proceed, MSF and MPC would have to consider alternative uses of the money within the objects, for none of which was there a current worked-through plan.

We have the outward bound centre at watermillock for education along with other facilities locally, with 3 Village halls (Watermillock, Pooley Bridge and Glenridding), I can’t see the benefit of additional new build when these ones are in close proximity.

As a believer of reducing waste streams and value added mindset, this is why I have gone for this option.