Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
LOCHWINNOCH OUT OF SCHOOL CLUB
BUSINESS PLAN AND FUTURE FEASIBILITY
STUDY ON MOVING TO THE LOCHWINNOCH
LIBRARY BUILDING
OCTOBER 2011
Prepared by Smart Consultancy (Scotland) Ltd
2
Report contents
Section 1 - background
1. Introduction and context 3
2. Study process 4
3. Lochwinnoch: key facts 5
Section 2 - LOSC business plan 2011/12 - 2014/15 (operating from Lochwinnoch Primary School)
4. LOSC background and developments date 7
5. Services, staffing, charges and governance arrangements 8
6. Income and expenditure projections 9
7. Future development 11
Section 3 - feasibility study on potential relocation to the current Lochwinnoch library building
8. Introduction, context and scope 13
9. Current LOSC premises 14
10. Lochwinnoch Library building summary 15
11. Summary of community groups and current premises usage in village 15
12. Summary of other community venues in Lochwinnoch 17
13. Future development options - assessment and feasibility 18
14. The wider community perspective 30
15. Conclusions, recommendations and suggested actions 31
Appendix 1 - questionnaire template for community group survey 34
3
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND
1. Introduction and context
The initial brief
Smart Consultancy was initially commissioned by LOSC to undertake a feasibility and
business planning study on the potential for the service to move to the Lochwinnoch library
building. This was on the basis that, at the time, the building was set to close as a library as
part of a wider rationalisation of Council premises within Lochwinnoch, and across
Renfrewshire. This process also included closure of the Annexe Sports Hall as a Council
facility.
The intention of the Council in this original scenario was to relocate a library service to the
SPACE rooms within the village’s McKillop Institute. This was the area where the LOSC
service had originally been based. In mid April 2011, it had been moved to the local primary
school to accommodate the proposed library changes. The Council then invited local
community groups to consider options - initially in the short term - to continue use of the
surplus facilities under some form of community use and management. LOSC were
identified as the preferred option for the library building, and the group were invited to
investigate the attractions and practicalities of this opportunity.
Consequently, LOSC’s original feasibility brief required detailed consideration of this move -
in operational, management and financial terms. It also required consideration of potential
wider community gains from this development, including the options for wider use of the
building, alongside its potential as a base for LOSC. In particular, this recognised that a
spare room at the back of the library building would not be required for LOSC’s use, but may
be suitable for wider community use.
The changing context
Shortly after the commissioning of the feasibility work, however, wider developments in the
village began to overtake some aspects of the initial brief. Most significantly, investigation
of the terms of transfer of the building to Council ownership in 1952 indicated that the
Council did not have clear title. This identified limitations in terms of the Council’s scope to
proceed as planned: the historic terms of trust transfer by a local family restricted changes
in use, and indeed questioned whether the building should ever have been utilised as a
library.
Ongoing legal work is now underway to try and resolve these issues. The one known
outcome of this at present is that any proposed change of use of the library building is no
longer imminent. For the time being the library will remain in its current form; although in
the medium term LOSC’s relocation to the building, as part of the development of a wider
community facility, is still an option.
4
Another less directly significant development is that the sports annexe in the village has now
closed, and there appears to be no serious interest in community management of this
facility. The condition of the building is reported as the primary reason for this.
These developments have necessarily called for a revision of the nature of this feasibility
work. It required establishing a dual focus (a) preparation of a short term business plan for
LOSC based on remaining within the school, and (b) the original purpose of the work to
undertake a feasibility study on a potential move to the library building - albeit within a
slightly longer time frame.
Section 2 of this report addresses the first issue, and section 3 the latter. Inevitably,
however, these are linked and there is some overlap - in particular this is to allow sections 2
and 3 to be used as required as stand-alone documents.
2. Study process
Work to produce both the business plan and the feasibility study has included:
An initial workshop with the LOSC committee and wider advisory group to scope out
future aspirations - directly for LOSC, and also in terms of the wider potential gains for
the community of Lochwinnoch
A review of background documentation on LOSC - financial projections; progress
documents; governance arrangements etc
Individual discussions with members of the LOSC board and staff to further clarify details
and gather additional information
Discussions with relevant officers in Renfrewshire Council, and the local elected member
for Lochwinnoch
Site visits to the library and other community facilities in Lochwinnoch, and a discussion
with a local community activist previously engaged in mapping facility use by groups in
the village
A short survey of the current use of premises, satisfaction levels and future aspirations
of a range of other identified community groups in Lochwinnoch, including any interest
in potentially using space in a vacated library building
Feedback and discussion of a draft version of this report with members of the LOSC
group
5
3. Lochwinnoch: key facts
Lochwinnoch is a rural village in the South West of Renfrewshire with a population of around
2,870 in 20081. Of Renfrewshire’s 15 main settlements, it is the 11th most populated area.
It neighbours the smaller village of Howwood, (population: 1,610), and the nearest large
settlement is Johnstone, with a population of 16,010. Paisley, by far the largest settlement
in Renfrewshire with a population of 74,780, lies 12 miles north east of Lochwinnoch.
The population of Lochwinnoch grew by 241 from 2001 to 2008, representing a growth of
9.2%. Only 5 settlements in Renfrewshire grew over this period, with the overall trend in
Renfrewshire displaying a decline of 1.8% in the population since 2001.
In terms of its demographic profile, Lochwinnoch has a higher proportion of children
compared to the wider local authority area. In 2008 there were estimated to be 565
children aged 0-15 in the village, representing 19.7% of the total population, compared to
the Renfrewshire average of 18.1%. The number of children aged 0-15 grew by 2.7% (15)
in Lochwinnoch between 2001 and 2008, compared to a general decrease of 8.4% in this
age group across Renfrewshire. The neighbouring village of Howwood experienced the
highest population growth of children in the authority (8.4%, although this equates to just
24 children).
These are the most recently available population estimates for the village, but they are
produced at the level of broad age bands and only provide an overview of population
structure. Although now quite out of date, of more relevance to the scope of the Out of
School Care service, the 2001 Census indicates that in 2001, there were 167 children aged
5-9 (6.4% of the population), 166 aged 10-14 (6.3%), and 149 aged 15-19 (5.7%).
Factoring in the growth between 2001-2008, this suggests that there may be around 330 –
340 children within the age group potentially catered for by an out of school care service.
Population projections are not available at a small area level, but Renfrewshire wide analysis
indicates that the 0-15 age group will decrease by 1% between 2008 and 2013, and by a
further 0.6% by 2018. Given that Lochwinnoch displayed a growth in the number of
children between 2001 and 2008 (against the trend of decline in Renfrewshire), it is difficult
to predict what the projected trend within the village will be. A number of housing
developments over the last few years brought new families to the area and boosted the
numbers of children in the community, but there do not appear to be any further housing
developments planned in the short to medium term. There is potential for further
development nevertheless in the longer term, with 3 areas of the village under consideration
for housing use.
School children in the village attend Lochwinnoch Primary School, and the majority progress
to Johnstone Secondary School. As at September 2011, Lochwinnoch Primary School had a
roll of 254 pupils. The table overleaf shows the number of pupils broken down by each
1 GROS Mid Year population estimates: 30 June 2008.
6
primary year. It also shows the pupil roll over the last 4 years2, and indicates that the
number of pupils currently in S1 and S2 (who would have been in P7 in September 2009
and 2010) is likely to be around 65.
Lochwinnoch Primary School: pupil roll at September 2008 - 2011
2008 2009 2010 2011
Total school roll 255 251 256 254
P1 35 39 47 42
P2 31 36 37 44
P3 46 31 36 38
P4 26 47 29 35
P5 42 28 46 29
P6 32 41 25 44
P7 43 29 36 22
Lochwinnoch Nursery School, attached to the primary, caters for an average of around 60
children annually.
Lochwinnoch is a relatively affluent village. This is confirmed by the ranking of its 4
datazones, none of which are close to being within the 15% most deprived in Scotland. Out
of a total of 6,505 datazones in Scotland, they rank - 3,537; 3,603; 3,856; and 5,3883. As a
consequence, Lochwinnoch is not eligible for any funding support targeted by deprivation.
More positively, however, Lochwinnoch is eligible for support through the EU funded
Renfrewshire LEADER programme. This is specifically for the rural areas of the authority,
and is returned to in more detail in section 3 of this report.
2 September 2008 - 2010 Pupil Census, Scottish Government Education Directorate 3 The higher ranking equates to the least deprived.
7
SECTION 2 - LOSC BUSINESS PLAN 2011/12 - 2014/15 (OPERATING FROM LOCHWINNOCH
PRIMARY SCHOOL)
4. LOSC background and developments to date
Following a developmental period of around 18 months, Lochwinnoch Out of School Club
(LOSC) was opened by a group of parents in May 2006. This responded to the lack of a
wrap around childcare service in the village. Prior to this, the only available support option
for school aged childcare was through childminders.
LOSC was initially successful in acquiring premises in Lochwinnoch Space - two rooms, a
kitchen and toilet facilities within the McKillop Institute - a Council operated facility in the
heart of the village.
LOSC has become a popular and well used service in Lochwinnoch, with capacity within the
McKillop Institute growing to 30 places for term time out of school care provision, and 15 full
time places in school holidays.
A series of wider developments in terms of community facilities in the village resulted in
LOSC moving premises into Lochwinnoch Primary School in April 2011. This was considered
a potentially interim arrangement within a process which could lead to LOSC permanently
relocating to the former village library building which was scheduled to close and relocate in
the summer of 2011. Legal complications with this proposed move have now put these
developments on hold until the scope for Council manoeuvre on changing the use of the
library is clarified.
This business plan has been prepared in the context that the future longer term location of
LOSC is still to be determined. A move to the former library building is still considered
worthy of medium term consideration, but this section of the plan is predicated on
remaining in the school for the foreseeable future. The feasibility study in section 3, details
the longer term options and business case for the operation of LOSC from a multi functional
facility within the library building.
Two critical business planning issues also accompanied the move of the LOSC service to the
school. These remain relevant to any future scenarios:
(a) LOSC rent levels have more than doubled - this is part of a Renfrewshire Council wide
policy to make budget cuts from reducing the level of subsidy in the rental rates for all
its facilities. (This increase would also have applied if the service had remained in the
McKillop Institute)
8
(b) the potential (through additional space) for LOSC to increase service capacity by 5 young
people for both term time and school holiday activities
5. Services, staffing, charges and governance arrangements
Services provided
The LOSC service offer in August 2011 included:
A term time out of school care service operating from 7.45am to 9am, and from 3pm to
6pm. Children can access LOSC either in the morning or afternoon, or both. Flexibility
is available in the number of hours the service can be used post school. The morning
service also offers the children breakfast
A full time school holiday service available between the hours of 7.45am - 6pm. This
offers a mixture of sports, arts and crafts, and other fun activities. Breakfast is provided
for the children using the club on either a morning or an all day basis. Snacks are also
provided in the afternoon
Both services are appropriate for children from the primary 1 to secondary 2 stage.
LOSC is fully registered and reviewed by the Care Commission. The most recent Inspection
Report indicated that it met or exceeded all necessary standards.
Location/capacity
The LOSC service is currently located in Lochwinnoch Primary School. It has the capacity for
35 children within the school term time services, and for 20 within the school holiday clubs.
Current charges
Current charges for children using the LOSC services are:
Pre-school/breakfast care - £3.50 per day
After school care 3-5pm - £6.50 per day
After school care 3-6pm - £9.75 per day
Holiday club full day - £22
Holiday club half day - £11
Charges are reviewed annually, but at this stage have not been increased in 2011.
Staffing
LOSC operates with a complement of 3 full time and 6 part time /sessional staff. The full
time posts are: Manager; Assistant Manager; and Play-leader.
9
LOSC Governance
LOSC is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. It reports within the
framework of the Companies Act and the requirements of the Office of the Scottish Charities
Register (OSCR). Membership of LOSC is open to all parents and guardians of primary
school age children. The members elect a Board of Directors which requires to have
between 5 and 10 members, with the option to co-opt another 3 members as required.
The Board is also currently supported by a ‘re-location sub group’ which includes 5 Directors
and 5 external community representatives. The role of this group is to consider the
potential relocation of LOSC to the library building as part of developing this as a multi
functional community facility.
6. Income and expenditure projections
This section summarises the income and expenditure projections for LOSC on the basis of
maintaining service delivery as provided in September 2011, and operating from
Lochwinnoch Primary School.
The figures are primarily based on information and analysis already undertaken by LOSC,
and extends this over the next 3 year period. Some necessary inflationary factors are
applied, and a modest increase in average occupancy rates is indicated. But no significant
service developments are projected: these may have to await a potential move to the
current library building.
In this context, a number of key observations underpin the detailed figures:
There is limited scope to increase income through new service developments
Consequently, the primary levers to increase income are through either raising charges
or increasing average occupancy levels - but with the clear recognition that these factors
are linked
The unavoidable reality that staffing costs are by some distance the major expenditure
item
The very significant rental increase applied by Renfrewshire Council in 2011, which by
itself removes LOSC’s historic annual operating margin
10
LOSC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS: SEPTEMBER 2011/12 TO AUGUST 2013/14
INCOME 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
After school 3-5pm (1) £15,767 £16,240 £16,727
After school 3-6pm (1) £33,334 £34,334 £35,364
Breakfast/pre school (2) £980 £18,152 £19,370
Holiday clubs (3) £19,800 £21,167 £22,587
Total income £85,881 £89,893 £94,048
EXPENDITURE
Wages and salaries (4) £63,392 £65,294 £67,253
Building costs/rent (5) £11,866 £12,222 £12,589
Cleaner wages/cleaning (6) £2,945 £3,033 £3,124
Food/snacks (7) £3,619 £3,764 £3,914
Staff training/welfare (6) £1,230 £1,267 £1,305
Miscellaneous (8) £3,548 £3,654 £3,764
Total expenditure £86,600 £89,234 £91,949
Profit/loss (9) -£719 £659 £2,099
Reserves opening (10) £26,559 £25,840 £26,499
Reserves year end (10) £25,840 £26,499 £28,598
Explanatory notes
1. These figures are based on a current average after school term time occupancy rate of
30.6 children. This represents 87.4% of current service capacity. In practical terms the
scope to increase this is very limited, and at this stage it is suggested no year on year
raising of numbers from this source is projected. An increase in fees is factored at 3%
per annum.
2. These figures are based on a current average pre-school term time occupancy rate of
25.4 children. This represents 72.6% of current service capacity. Through increased
service promotion and a rising number of young children in the village, these occupancy
rates are projected to rise by an average of 1 in both 2012/13 and 2013/14. An increase
in fees is factored at 3% per annum.
3. These figures are based on an average occupancy rate of 15 - 75% of the recently
increased holiday club capacity (through re-location of the service to Lochwinnoch
Primary School). Anticipated and historic demand levels lead to projections of an
average increase of 1 child in both 2012/13 and 2013/14. An increase in fees is factored
at 3% per annum.
11
4. Wages and salaries are calculated on the basis of 3 full time staff, and supporting
sessional staff to meet Care Commission regulations. These figures include on costs
and £250 per month for administrative support. Salary increases of 3% are factored in
2012/13 and 2013/14. Overall salary costs account for over 73% of all LOSC
expenditure.
5. Due primarily to rental cost increases, the premises costs of LOSC have increased very
substantially with 2011/12 projections approaching 219% of the equivalent for 2009/10.
Further 3% year on year rises are projected.
6. Based on 2011/12 costs with a year on year increase of 3%.
7. A year on year increase of 4% is applied to this budget in anticipation of growing
occupancy levels for the LOSC service.
8. This heading includes: arts and crafts costs; postage; stationery and printing; and
telephone and fax charges. None of these cost in excess of £1,000 per annum. Again a
year on year inflationary increase of 3% is applied.
9. The financial year 2011/12 projects a very small operating loss for the first time in
LOSC’s history. This is primarily due to the large increase in rental costs. From
2012/13, a return to small surpluses is forecast.
10. For year end 31/8/10, LOSC’s accounts indicate the company holds £26,559 in reserves.
7. Future development
The major developmental option for LOSC is the feasibility and practicality of relocating the
service within the current library building. This would offer the potential to both expand and
diversify LOSC’s activities, alongside wider community use of the building.
Without this development, LOSC will largely continue to deliver its current service offer. In
the absence of a substantial rises in fees - which could be counter-productive in terms of
occupancy levels - financial projections suggest LOSC will require to operate on very tight
margins. Even these are dependent on a small year on year increase in occupancy levels
for the term time pre-school service, and the holiday clubs. Achieving the latter in
particular, will be assisted by the recent increase in LOSC capacity within the school.
Two specific actions are suggested to achieve these occupancy increases:
discussions with the school to investigate a slightly earlier opening time in the morning -
in particular to align with the most popular early commuter trains to Glasgow
12
further attempts to increase usage by the ‘older’ category of young people - those aged
between 12 and 14. But with recognition that for practical and perception issues this
may be harder to achieve at the school than at a new facility
13
SECTION 3 - FEASIBILITY STUDY ON POTENTIAL RELOCATION TO THE CURRENT LOCHWINNOCH LIBRARY BUILDING
8. Introduction, context and scope
Following a decision in 2010 by Renfrewshire Council to relocate the Lochwinnoch library
from its current building to a new base in the McKillop Institute, LOSC were identified as the
preferred organisation to move to the vacated library building. To advance this, they were
invited to develop a detailed and costed proposal to base the LOSC service within a new
multifunctional community facility.
Further investigations into the nature of Council ownership of the building, however, have
highlighted that at present, they have no clear title from a previous trust transfer. This has
now caused a delay in progressing developments, and an early move by LOSC to the library
is no longer likely. Nevertheless, in the medium term this is still considered an option.
The feasibility study has been conducted within this context. It was considered important to
progress with this, as work of this nature may still be relevant to - and potentially inform -
developments once the title issues surrounding the library building are resolved.
The feasibility work seeks to answer a number of key questions:
Would the library be a preferable base for the LOSC service - now and in supporting
longer term developmental aspirations?
What other community based activities/groups would want to and could operate from
additional areas in the building, and potentially at times of the day/week when LOSC
does not deliver its services?
Is wider use of the building by other groups practical in operational terms?
Is it possible to construct a viable and sustainable revenue and capital funding package
for a multi functional facility, with LOSC as the anchor tenant?
What are the options to establish appropriate and workable community management
options for the building?
How could any proposed developments advance the aspirations of other community
groups, and be consistent with a wider community vision for Lochwinnoch?
This feasibility work was initially intended to coincide with an architect’s study. A full brief
for this has been prepared, requiring consideration of: internal and external works required
in the building; internal redesign options which are compliant with Care Commission
14
standards, the DDA and other building regulations; options to create a separate independent
area at the rear of the building with the potential to be sub let; options to create a flexible,
multi functional space with built in storage facilities; and options to deaden sound.
Due to the delays in the process detailed above, LOSC have put the commissioning of this
work on hold. Should it be reactivated, it is estimated to take around 2 months to complete.
This will clearly be required to augment the aspects of feasibility work addressed in this
report.
9. Current LOSC premises
The LOSC service is currently operating from Lochwinnoch Primary School. This involves
use of common space in the building, which is required for school use in the main part of
the day. LOSC also has access to the playground area - which enables outside activities
including games and sport. LOSC has access to storage facilities, but has no dedicated
space within the school to solely deliver the OSC service. LOSC has only operated from
these facilities since April 2011. This may be a temporary base prior to moving to the
vacated library building.
From LOSC’s perspective, in considering whether a new base in the library would be
preferable it is important to reflect on early feedback as to how these arrangements are
working. Key advantages and disadvantages are summarised in the table below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Relations with school staff are generally
good - no significant practical problems reported
No onward travel for young people in terms of going to or leaving school
Increase in term time capacity to 35 and holiday club capacity to 20 (compared to
the previous Lochwinnoch Space premises)
Access to the playground is popular with children - especially the boys
No dedicated space
Limited control - at mercy of school
priorities Unable to use walls to display children’s
work Limited access due to caretaking hours
Limited ability to attract more ‘older’ secondary school aged children - if LOSC
perceived as ‘back’ at the primary school
Overall, therefore, the current operating base at the school appears generally good and fit
for purpose; although some developmental and operational limitations are apparent. Any
move to the library building would require to evidence that the quality of direct facilities
used by LOSC would exceed or at least match the school based option.
15
10. Lochwinnoch library building - summary
The current base of Lochwinnoch library is a 19th century, single storey unlisted building
located on the main street in the centre of the village. Internally it is approximately 307
square metres in size, and is set in gardens to the front, and a car park area to the rear.
Internally the building currently includes:
A small entrance area
The main L-shaped library area, with an adjacent IT area
A staff room/kitchen
2 small offices
A good sized room at the back of the building (c44 square meters) with separate access.
(This is not used by the library, and was previously the village museum)
2 public toilets and a staff toilet
A small dedicated store room
No full buildings survey is available to inform this feasibility work, but overall the library is
considered in good condition for a building of its age. However, some obvious internal and
external maintenance and repairs are apparent.
11. Summary of community groups and current use of premises in the village
As part of the feasibility study, a short phone based survey was conducted with a range of
existing community groups in the village. The survey sought to identify: the current
activities of each group; participant numbers; the location/frequency/ nature of the current
premises they use; and the costs involved. It concluded, by asking about the overall
suitability of their current bases, what improvements would be helpful, and whether a
potential move to a community facility in the library building would be of interest.
The groups surveyed were identified through discussions with the LOSC Board/relocation
sub group, and by website searches. It is unlikely to be an entirely comprehensive survey,
but incorporates the views of a significant number of the key groups in the village.
The full questions used are contained in appendix 1. The key messages of direct relevance
to this feasibility study are:
11 representatives of Lochwinnoch based groups and clubs were surveyed via telephone
interview. These included:
o The Parents and Toddlers Group
o Lochwinnoch Playgroup
o The Gym club
o Mo and Ro’s Aerobics class
o The Active Baby Yoga class
16
o The Dance School
o The Taekwon Do club
o The Scottish Country Dance Club
o Lochwinnoch Elderly Forum
o The Drama Club
o The Historical Society
The membership/capacity of the groups surveyed ranged from 6 in the Active Baby Yoga
class to up to 48 members in the Taekwon Do class (if 2 instructors are present; 34 if 1
instructor). The Elderly Forum has 70 members, but average around 40 on a regular
basis at meetings of the Forum. Other than the playgroup, which can take up to 16
children, most groups tended to have between 20-30 members in attendance on club
sessions
All but 2 of the groups surveyed currently meet in the McKillop Institute; 5 in the main
hall, 2 in the lesser hall; and the other 2 in other rooms, including the Elderly Forum
which holds the T Bar in the room adjoining the bar. The Active Baby Yoga class is held
in Castle Semple visitor centre in a room behind the shop, and the Historical Society
meet in the Parish Church
Overall, there was genuine interest amongst most of the groups surveyed in locating to
the library building if it comes into community use
Although interested, a number of groups indicated that they may be less likely to move
their activities to the library building, primarily because of perceived space constraints.
These included the Parents and Toddlers Group, the Drama Club, the Aerobics class and
the Country Dancing Club, all of which currently meet in the McKillop Institute. The
size/capacity of the hall and access to the stage were given as the main reasons for
these groups using the Institute. Similarly, the Taekwon Do club and gym club would
need to assess the overall size and roof height of the available space in the library as
being suitable for their activities (these included using a vault and trampoline). Both the
Historical Society and the elderly forum are satisfied with their current facilities in the
Church and the McKillop Institute
The remaining groups said that they would be happy to consider moving to the library
on the basis that it met basic requirements, which were fairly limited in terms of specific
demands. Apart from the more active/activity based clubs which said that space was a
major concern, the other overwhelming issue for groups was cost
Most of the groups surveyed currently use the McKillop Institute and have experienced
an increase in rental costs since April 2011. The majority of groups reported that they
were finding the additional cost (some quoted that costs had doubled or even trebled) a
real difficulty. They were reluctant to pass on the costs to members, but without doing
this were struggling to operate within their current pricing structure
17
Next to cost and space considerations, other issues raised by groups included the
following:
o Storage space would be useful – 5 groups have storage requirements
o Tea/coffee/juice making facilities would be required by at least 3 of the groups
o The importance of cleanliness was mentioned by 1 group
o Ease of access was mentioned by 1 group who considered the library an ideal
venue because it doesn’t have steps
o Sprung flooring for the more active groups was also a consideration
All in all, there was a general willingness to consider the library building as a possible
venue for groups in Lochwinnoch, with some very keen to explore this option further
should the building come into community use. Understandably, a number said that they
would need to examine the inside of the building and the layout to properly assess its
suitability
12. Summary of other community venues in Lochwinnoch
In addition to the library building, there are a number of other venues in Lochwinnoch used
by community groups. These are summarised in the table below:
McKillop Institute Large hall with stage: capacity 150-200
lesser hall: capacity 100-125
Meeting room with access to bar: capacity 25-30 Small meeting room: capacity 20-25
2 rooms previously used by LOSC
Parish Church Hall with kitchen: capacity 150-200
Guild meeting room: capacity 30-40
Catholic Church Hall Meeting room: capacity 35-40
Masonic Hall Bar and meeting room: capacity 25-30
Castle Semple Visitor
Centre
Cafe and meeting room
Lochwinnoch Golf Club Function suite: capacity 120
2 meeting rooms: capacity 20 (each)
Lochwinnoch Indoor
Football/sports centre
Function suite: capacity 150
Lochwinnoch Bowling Club
Function hall: 120 Meeting room
Brown Bull pub Upstairs meeting room: capacity 30-40
For a village of fewer than 3,000 people, these facilities are quite extensive, and this is
reflected in the lack of comments in the survey of groups that there is an overall shortage of
venues. Moreover, some of the private options in particular, such as the indoor
football/sports centre and the golf course, have recently been refurbished to a relatively
high standard. The closure of the sports annexe may, to a degree, counterbalance these
developments.
18
This is an important issue from a wider community perspective and for the potential
development of the library building. In the absence of no current shortage of supply and no
significant increase in demand, developing a new multi functional community facility may
simply lead to a process of ‘musical chairs’ amongst local groups, the outcome of which may
be that some venues simply become unviable. The implications of this consequently goes
beyond consideration of the library building in isolation, and leads to our suggestion in
section 14 that a wider and more strategic cross village approach may be appropriate.
13. Future development options - assessment and feasibility
Defining aspirations
Informed by all aspects of the background information above, this section now considers in
more detail the key feasibility questions listed in section 8. This requires consideration of
both LOSC’s immediate requirements to continue to deliver and develop a high quality
childcare service, alongside the potential wider community benefits of developing the
current library as a transformational space in the village. The initial workshop with LOSC
Directors and the relocation sub group identified the aspirations for the new facility from
these dual perspectives. These are summarised in the table below:
LOSC aspirations Wider community aspirations
Access and ‘control’ of LOSC’s own space
to deliver services The creation of a positive environment
for the children - clearly visible to parents
The creation of an exciting new base which supports expansion of the service -
in terms of both numbers, and in the provision of a service more attractive to older children (c12-14 age group)
An operating base which secures the long term financial sustainability of LOSC
Governance structures which are inclusive, practical and manageable and which do not adversely impact on LOSC’s
capacity to run a childcare service A credible funding package addressing
capital and revenue issues
A practical plan to move developments forward in the short and medium/longer
term
The library building remaining as a
vibrant community facility Community access to, and influence
over, the future use of the building
A practical, costed plan - balancing aspiration and realism
Imagination to maximise usage and ensure financial sustainability
A facility which helps secure the future of
existing community activities and potentially encourages new services in
the village An approach that ensures the building is
well managed and maintained in good
condition
The key observation from the above is that these sets of aspirations are clearly compatible,
though balancing them in practice will be a challenge.
19
Future options appraisal
In general terms, 4 main options are suggested within a potential LOSC led
move to the library building. These are not entirely exclusive of the others, and a timescale
factoring may be required which involves moving from one option to another over time. To
enable LOSC to move forward, it is important, however, to suggest a recommended
approach over the short and medium term.
The 4 main options are:
Option 1 - LOSC move to the building as the sole tenant in the short/medium term -
enabling the scope for further expansion of the LOSC service in terms of numbers and
service range. Areas not required by LOSC are not used in any significant way, with
perhaps some informal but non-commercially driven availability offered to other community
groups.
Option 2 - LOSC move to the building as the anchor tenant, occupying most of the area
used by the current library service, and commercially seeks to rent out the areas not
required (primarily the former museum room) to a single second tenant on the basis of
separate access. Within this option, LOSC could continue to develop its service as with
option 1.
Option 3 - as option 2, but with LOSC renting the space not utilised by the service to a
range of community groups who would hire the space on an hourly/sessional basis.
Option 4 - as option 3, but with the addition that LOSC also rents out the area required to
deliver its core service at times of the day (and potentially weekends) when LOSC does not
deliver a service.
To asses these options, a series of issues have been developed from the feasibility brief, and
the future aspirations of LOSC and its relocation sub group as detailed in the table above.
These are:
Revenue funding implications
Capital funding implications
Operational practicality
Impact on the wider development of the LOSC service
Wider community gains
Governance and management implications
Demand assessment
Speed of development
Risk levels
The grid overleaf summarises an assessment of all these issues by the 4 options suggested:
20
Issue/option Option 1 - sole LOSC occupancy
Option 2 - 2 core tenants Option 3 - spare space let to groups
Option 4 - LOSC and spare space let to groups
Revenue funding implications
Very limited income generation
But saving of current property costs
Attractive if core tenant capable of paying LOSC a
reasonable rent can be found
Potentially attractive if other existing/new groups
choose to use spare facilities
Some evidence of interest
from existing community groups if rent levels and
space are suitable Reduces direct costs of
occupying the building for LOSC
But may require additional
caretaking/cleaning costs for LOSC
As per option 3 - but greater potential to
generate income through increased use of all the building
Probably higher additional
caretaking/cleaning/ building management costs required
Capital funding implications
Some refurbishment and
adaptations required - but likely to be less extensive
than other options
More than option 1 but
less than options 3 or 4 Dependant on needs of
second tenant
Likely to be more
extensive as adaptations needed to spare space to
enable flexible use, and develop storage options
Most extensive and
expensive option - all of building would require to
be adapted to maximise flexibility, and greater storage space required
Operational practicality
Most straightforward option - LOSC simply manages the
facility for sole use LOSC staff could cover own
caretaking requirements in terms of opening and closing the building
Still relatively straightforward - no
bookings service needed Second tenant with
separate access could be responsible for own caretaking arrangements
via key holder arrangements
More complicated operational issues would
require to be addressed - caretaking, building access, insurance costs,
booking mechanisms etc
Most complex option - extending issues
identified for option 3
21
Issue/option Option 1 - sole LOSC occupancy
Option 2 - 2 core tenants Option 3 - spare space let to groups
Option 4 - LOSC and spare space let to groups
Development of LOSC service
Potential to take forward development of service -
scope/space to increase capacity and diversify service
Gives LOSC ‘complete’ control of building and its
potential to develop new services
Assuming main library area sufficient for LOSC
plans in short/medium term, option 2 assessment as per option1
Possible building ‘footfall’ gains if second tenant
advances wider childcare/youth theme (but this cannot be
assumed)
As per option 2 Potentially most restrictive option in
terms of developing LOSC service. Loss of dedicated space and
control, and development aspirations may be restricted by
requirements of other groups using space
Would require additional
storage space May cause tensions with
other users
Wider community gains
Limited to potential ad hoc
use of spare capacity - but also at little cost to other
groups Not the creation of the
aspired to multi functional
community space Sense that building would
be underused in wider community
Potential gains limited to
the provision of a single additional group. Wider
multifunctional aspiration clearly restricted
Significant gains if a
number of groups use facility
Nearer to aspiration for busy multi functional community facility
Option to give building a ‘thematic’ footprint
May encourage the development or attraction
of new community activities to the village
As per option 3, but
theoretically biggest gains - and widest usage
by other community groups
22
Issue/option Option 1 - sole LOSC occupancy
Option 2 - 2 core tenants Option 3 - spare space let to groups
Option 4 - LOSC and spare space let to groups
Governance implications
Least complicated of all options - but LOSC has
added responsibility of being the leaseholder of the building
Relatively straightforward and uncomplicated for
LOSC - but requires taking on some limited ‘landlord’ function
Takes LOSC significantly beyond core role of
running a childcare service - demanding scrutiny of capacity and motivations
Management role can be adversarial in choosing
which groups get access and what they pay
May be value in
considering another vehicle to take on building
governance role
As per option 3 but more complex. Potential
problems for LOSC in simultaneously being anchor tenant and
landlord of same space Probably increases the
case for LOSC not to take on the landlord function
Demand assessment Only significant implication is realising increased
demand for the LOSC service
No need to assess demand from other groups to use the building
Critical question is that a suitable/ complimentary
second tenant could be attracted. This is not
apparent at this stage from the initial community study, though wider
marketing/ research may identify this
Evidence of some demand from existing groups and
potential new users Key will be rental levels,
access arrangements and the quality of the facility
Overall suggestion,
however, of potentially adequate existing supply
of premises for community groups in the village
Evidence of some demand which may be
increased through the increased options of
using the whole building But difficult at this stage
to be confident on scale
of this demand - especially given other
facilities in village
23
Issue/option Option 1 - sole LOSC occupancy
Option 2 - 2 core tenants Option 3 - spare space let to groups
Option 4 - LOSC and spare space let to groups
Speed of development
Quickest option to progress Relatively quick - limited capital works required
Longer term - more extensive capital
works/adaptations likely to be required
LOSC would need to
establish detailed operational procedures
New governance arrangements may require
time to develop
As per option 3 but more complicated
Risk levels Low risk with major proviso that revenue funding
package is sustainable through the development of LOSC service alone
Risk in LOSC alienating wider community
High risk in terms of identifying suitable second
anchor tenant Still risk in LOSC alienating
the wider community
Overall higher risk in terms of LOSC governance
and securing usage levels Potential for LOSC to
alienate some community groups if they are denied suitable access to the
building Existing groups moving to
the facility may have adverse implications for other venues in the village
- potentially affecting their viability
As per option 4 - but risks magnified in all
respects Scale of capital works
required may be unaffordable
24
Review and recommended options
The above analysis indicates that all of the options have potential attractions and
drawbacks. These largely reflect the need to balance ambition with practicalities.
Option 1 is the most limited but potentially straightforward. In practical terms it could
enable relatively quick re-use of the library building, should it become vacant. It would
provide LOSC with an attractive dedicated space from which to deliver, develop and market
its services further, with no significant storage problems. The obvious weakness is the lack
of the option’s potential to develop a wider community venue, and that it would not reduce
the pressure on LOSC to directly support all the building’s running costs.
Option 2 addresses the last of these concerns, should a suitable second anchor tenant be
found. It is also quite simple in operational terms. But it offers limited wider community
gain, and in practice looking relying on a second anchor tenant may be high risk. None are
immediately apparent from the research undertaken.
Option 3 moves closer to the aspiration for a wider community facility, and in practical
terms it would appear more likely that some existing groups - and potentially some new
activities - would use the available space on a sessional/ad hoc basis. It also has potential
revenue funding attractions. The main drawback is that in operational and governance
terms it is more complicated, and raises significant questions as to whether LOSC would
wish to assume the building landlord role in these circumstances.
Option 4 is the most ambitious. In theory it offers the widest and most diverse use of the
building, and would contribute the greatest resources to offset LOSC’s direct rental costs.
But it may not be practical, and at this stage there is limited evidence of community demand
for this scale of facility. It would also be most extensive in capital terms, and provide very
significant new operational and governance challenges for LOSC. In addition, a facility of
this nature may in practice ‘compete’ with other community facilities in the village, impacting
on their ongoing viability. Most significant in this respect may be the future of the McKillop
Institute.
In conclusion, therefore, we believe the best options to pursue would be through a two
stage process moving over time from option 1 to option 3. This would seem to most
appropriately balance practicality, longer term sustainability, and a marriage of LOSC’s direct
interests with those of the wider community. A phased approach would also enable LOSC to
consider and discuss with other community groups, the most appropriate longer term
governance options. As we return to in section 14, this may best be addressed within a
wider community vision of Lochwinnoch in the longer term.
25
We now consider the more detailed financial practicalities of this approach.
Financial assessment of recommended options
Income
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
LOSC rent/cleaning costs (1) £15,225 £15,682 £16,152
rental income (2) £5,000 £6,000 £7,200
rates relief (3) £4,930 £5,077 £5,230
LEADER revenue (4) £5,000 £5,000 £0
total income £30,155 £31,759 £28,582
Expenditure
Rates (5) £6,162 £6,347 £6,537
Water/sewage (5) £1,016 £1,046 £1,078
Energy (5) £3,646 £3,755 £3,868
Repairs (5) £2,683 £2,763 £2,846
Cleaning/caretaking (6) £9,000 £9,270 £9,548
Insurances (7) £4,000 £4,120 £4,244
Miscellaneous/contingency (8) £1,000 £1,030 £1,061
Total expenditure £27,507 £28,332 £29,182
Surplus/deficit (9) £2,648 £3,427 -£600
Explanatory notes
(1) This is based on LOSC transferring the costs incurred through current property/
rental/cleaning costs to the library building4, and factoring in a 3% year on year
inflationary increase. It should be noted that LOSC’s ability to pay these costs is
dependent on a modest increase in occupancy levels, as detailed in section 6 of this
report. In reality, a move to the library, and the associated benefits of this, should
enable a quicker and more extensive occupancy increase, but given current demand
levels caution is required on projecting significant income increases in the short term.
(2) These projections are based on solely leasing out the space within the library previously
used as a museum. Estimates are based on the demand survey linked to the current
rental costs paid for other venues in the village. These suggest an annual hourly rental
rate (weekdays only) of £10 per hour. Based on the survey of likely existing demand,
usage rates are initially suggested as relatively modest at an average of 10 hours per
week, rising by an estimated 20% year on year. Assuming these are achieved in 50
weeks each year, the initial income projection for year 1 is consequently £5,000.
(3) This is based on applying for a small short term LEADER revenue grant for 2 years to
ensure acceptable operating margins, and enable further developmental activity. It is
4 See section 6 of this report.
26
suggested this is framed around supporting caretaking costs in the initial start up period
of operation. (See below for further details).
(4) This is shown as ‘income’ for illustrative purposes only. It is based LOSC receiving
mandatory 80% rates relief - on the basis the building is used ‘wholly or mainly for
charitable purposes’. The Council has the discretionary power to raise this to 100%
relief.
(5) These figures are based on existing running costs for the library provided by
Renfrewshire Council, with inflation factored at 3%.
(6) These costs are based on transferring LOSC’s current cleaning costs and adding
approximately £6,000 per annum to enable the engagement of part time caretaking and
building management functions.
(7) Insurance costs are projected on the basis of estimates from similar community run
premises elsewhere. These cover public liability, buildings and contents insurance. But
they cannot be assumed to be entirely accurate, and will be dependent on a number of
as yet undetermined factors such as the nature of capital works and the precise activities
operating from the building.
(8) A small contingency budget is included to cover costs such as legal/professional fees,
marketing and transition issues.
(9) In the initial 2 years the projections suggest an operating margin of between 8-11%.
This is suggested as a prudent figure to aim for in this period, with any surpluses
reinvested in the development of the facility. In year 3, following the end of LEADER
revenue support, a small operating loss is projected. This should, however, be
bridgeable on the basis that wider use of the building may be possible by this stage,
and/or through LOSC increasing its rental contribution based on a wider expansion of its
service.
Capital and revenue - grant funding options funding options
The above projections are based on the assumption that appropriate capital adaptations and
improvements are made to the existing library building, and that a small, time limited
revenue grant is secured to support the initial phase of community management of the
building.
With regard to capital costs, the architect’s study will be required to determine the precise
nature and scale of these.
The most appropriate source for both types of grant funding is suggested as the
Renfrewshire LEADER programme - which is an EU supported programme targeted at
projects benefitting local communities in the rural areas of Renfrewshire. Eligibility is
27
therefore quite limited, but Lochwinnoch qualifies. As a consequence, the prospects of a
successful application are generally better than for more competitive funds. A total of
£470,000 is available for either capital or revenue costs. The most appropriate route within
LEADER would appear to be through the ‘revitalising communities theme’ and the specific
priority to support ‘existing and new community owned assets’.
LEADER funding can support around 90-95% of total costs, with around 5-10% required to
be matched from LOSC’s own resources. This match can, however, be ‘in-kind’ in terms of
volunteer or staff time, and should not present too many problems in the application
process.
Renfrewshire Council manage the LEADER programme with support from a Renfrewshire
Local Action Group (LAG). Applications are invited on a quarterly basis, with the final
deadline to consider these currently December 20125. The Council is keen, however, to
distribute LEADER money quickly, and as early an application as practicable would therefore
be of value.
Governance and operational management issues
As indicated above, LOSC requires to carefully consider the governance and operational
options of moving to the library in a landlord capacity. Whilst the obvious gain of this would
be greater control over its premises, a number of significant potential drawbacks of this role
need to be factored:
Overall it significantly extends the remit and responsibilities of the Board of Directors
from exclusively running an out of school service to a more extensive building
management, and potentially landlord role. This brings a host of additional demands
including: building insurance; maintenance; caretaking (opening and closing the
facility/emergency call outs etc); and the establishment of systems to attract, liaise and
receive payments from ‘tenants’. These challenges are not insurmountable, but they are
considerable - LOSC would in practice probably require to identify a lead Director(s) to
take responsibility for these issues, and/or add to staff remits
The financial projections for the option costed above, suggest that - in the short term at
least - the building would operate on very tight margins: no significant surplus to offset
LOSC’s current operating costs is anticipated. But there is a level of risk that some
projected income does not materialise as planned. In this scenario, LOSC would require
to meet the shortfall from its own reserves, and potentially significant shortfalls could
threaten the overall viability of the out of school service. The income projections
detailed above are deliberately modest to minimise this danger; but it does still require
to be considered
5 The lead contact for the Renfrewshire LAG is Karen Ferguson who can be contacted by e-mail at:
28
As a childcare service, mainly run by parents, LOSC can anticipate to have a reasonably
high turnover of Directors - with people leaving as their children grow beyond the
relevant age. This turnover profile is a further reason to be cautious on extending the
direct LOSC role vis a vis the library building. It may deter other parents from becoming
new Directors
Consequently we conclude that LOSC does not seek to take on the landlord function of the
library building in the longer term. Rather its place in developments should be as an anchor
tenant; a role which in itself will bring considerable influence. This then requires
consideration of 2 follow up questions: how do developments proceed at this stage, and
who could take on the landlord function?
In response to the first of these, there may be a case for LOSC to continue with the lead
role for a short period of time - supported by the wider re-location sub group. This may
involve being the lead organisation in applying for LEADER funding. But this role should be
based from the outset on a plan to ‘promote and float’ this development to another
community based structure with a wider remit at the earliest opportunity. This could be to
an existing local group such as LMEG, to an external property management company, or
through the creation of a new structure. As we return to in section 14, this could involve
the establishment of a Lochwinnoch Community Development Trust.
A wider childcare vision for Lochwinnoch?
Linked to the above issues, a more ambitious 5th option for use of the library building is also
apparent, but the details of this go beyond the scope of this report, and probably reposition
LOSC in a different place in the developmental process.
This would involve the current library building becoming a themed childcare facility -
incorporating LOSC, and the potential relocation of existing childcare groups such as the
Lochwinnoch play group, and the active baby yoga classes. But placed at the heart of this
development would be the establishment of a pre 5 nursery. There are a number of
potential advantages to this:
The building could develop a clear image and footprint as ‘Lochwinnoch Community
Childcare Centre’. It would clearly distinguish developments from appearing to be simply
the creation of a new facility ‘competing’ with other venues in the village - most notably
the McKillop Institute
There is no nursery provision in the village at present beyond the local authority service
in the school. This is limited in terms of access times, and the age at which children are
eligible. Consequently, this development would create a ‘new’ service in Lochwinnoch,
and also a number of new jobs and training opportunities
Multi and flexible use of all areas of the building during the day would be more practical
- it is not uncommon for pre-school and out of school care services to be co-located
29
More than all of the 4 main options listed above, this type of development could very
significantly reduce the rental costs of the out of school care service, by sharing them
across a larger childcare service. In practice, a day nursery should be anticipated to pay
a significant share of the rent - though some caretaking, cleaning and insurance costs
may rise
At face value, the current library building would physically appear attractive as a nursery,
assuming suitable capital works and adaptations are undertaken
Capital and revenue funding for this type of development may be available through
LEADER and other sources such as the Big Lottery. It may also be possible to integrate
a low carbon theme to how the building is refurbished - attracting further resources from
the Carbon Challenge Fund
It is possible, and not uncommon, to develop this type of facility within a social
enterprise model, which retains control of developments with local people, and
redistributes any operating surpluses for wider community gain
This option is worthy of series consideration. But it is a significant step beyond the initial
brief for this report, and raises a number of very major issues for LOSC, and the core service
it currently provides. Most importantly:
Would LOSC have any interest in directly developing a day nursery service?
Are there any other groups or individuals in the village who may be prepared to lead this
type of development?
What would be the options/implications of inviting an existing day nursery company
elsewhere to establish a service in Lochwinnoch?
Would a private nursery operator be considered6?
Would LOSC, over time, wish to see the out of school care service incorporated into this
wider service?
These issues require further consideration, and in practice moving in this direction would
have to be phased. They do not preclude LOSC at this stage also continuing an interest in
options 1-3 detailed above, as much of the immediate developmental work required is
similar. But fairly quickly a decision in principle is probably required by LOSC on whether
the integrated childcare centre concept is considered attractive. This would then require
LOSC to carefully consider its position as an organisation in the process, and whether it
6 This option would raise issues as to whether charitable status, and critically rates relief, would remain options in
operating the building.
30
reinforces that these types of developments would more appropriately be progressed under
a wider Community Development Trust type model, as considered below.
14. The wider community perspective
A wider but important final observation from this feasibility study is that this work, like other
developments in the village, may be too narrowly focused on the opportunities linked to a
specific building.
From the outset LOSC were very keen that this wider perspective was maintained, but in
practice achieving this whilst looking at the interests of a single service and a specific
building is problematical. Quite simply, it is apparent that what may happen with the
current library building could have knock on - and potentially quite significant implications -
for other facilities in the village. Moreover, taking a wider perspective almost inevitably
leads to conclusions which can appear well beyond the scope of the study brief, and the
interests and capacities of LOSC to progress.
Within the current context, there are a number of attractions in progressing a wider vision
for Lochwinnoch through the establishment of a Community Development Trust7 - a well
established model, with wide ranging potential, to advance priority community led
developments. In this context, it could be the umbrella structure within which issues like
the future of the library building and overall childcare provision in the village could be
progressed.
It is suggested that the local and national preconditions for this type of development are in
place in Lochwinnoch:
It is a vibrant, defined community, with a considerable number of motivated and skilled
community activists
A range of local and national policies are now suggesting communities must redefine
their relationships with public sector agencies and funders - developing new structures,
and taking more control of the design and delivery of services. This ‘localism’ agenda
includes recently created options for greater community ownership of assets
Sustained public sector funding cuts will be reality for a number of years. This context
increasingly demands that the resources which are available are spent effectively, and in
line with identified community priorities
A community wide view on the contribution and ‘fit’ on how all the available premises in
the village meet the needs identified would be of value. Decisions could then be taken
within a wider strategy. Otherwise a process of ‘musical’ chairs in the use of facilities
could occur, with unintended consequences which may benefit no-one in the longer term
7 We are aware that this option has already been raised in response to other developmental opportunities in the
village.
31
A collective vehicle to establish this community overview could consider positive new
developments in the village, based on evidenced community priorities, and not be solely
focused on protecting the existing services and infrastructure. It would also provide a
more attractive and convincing base from which to consider community ownership
options
The current delay in progressing developments in the library building provides an
opportunity to pause and consider the challenges and opportunities presented in this wider
context. Progressing the fifth option detailed above would certainly benefit from some wider
developmental vehicle, as would the recommendation in option 3 that the landlord function
on the library building is undertaken by another agency than LOSC.
As an additional wider recommendation we consequently suggest LOSC forward appropriate
sections of this report to LMEG and invite consideration as to whether either through LMEG,
or another suitable existing vehicle, further consideration is given to the establishment of a
Community Development Trust for Lochwinnoch.
15. Conclusions, recommendations and suggested actions
Key conclusions
A number of key messages are suggested from this study which should inform future
direction for both LOSC and wider community organisations in Lochwinnoch. These are:
Overall there are potential attractions in LOSC moving its future service delivery to the
library building, if this option become available. This would require, as a minimum: a
modest increase in occupancy numbers; some limited wider use of space not required by
LOSC; LEADER fund capital support, and a small amount of time limited revenue funding
LOSC is not, however, under any immediate pressure to move its current service base.
To date, delivery arrangements from the new base at the primary school appear to be
working well, with some significant advantages. But, due primarily to recent increases in
rental charges, a modest increase in occupancy levels will be required to return to an
operating surplus
LOSC should avoid assuming a landlord function within any future move to the library
building. This would bring with it significant new responsibilities and challenges for the
company, and potentially divert attention from the main objective of providing a high
quality out of school care service
From a wider community perspective, the survey work undertaken suggests that
Lochwinnoch is currently well served in terms of facilities for the existing groups
operating in the village. There is no evidence of an excess of supply over demand. In
this context, without the development of significant new activity, the development of a
32
further community facility is likely to lead to competition with existing venues. This may
have consequences for the ongoing viability of these facilities in the longer term. The
future of the MCKillop Institute may come under greater scrutiny in these circumstances
The most immediately apparent ‘new’ service opportunity for the new library building
may be the development of a day nursery. This could provide the basis to establish the
building as the ‘Lochwinnoch Childcare Centre’ with a clear themed use incorporating the
LOSC service and some other child focused services in the village. This has many
attractions for both LOSC and the wider community of Lochwinnoch, but it demands
further consideration by LOSC of a number of key issues on how this could progress, and
the direct role LOSC may wish to play in developments of this nature
Overall the study has highlighted some limitations in looking at the potential future of a
single building in the village, in isolation from the bigger picture. As a consequence, we
would suggest and reinforce the attractions of considering the establishment of a
Lochwinnoch Community Development Trust. For LOSC, this would potentially provide a
more suitable vehicle to advance the wider childcare model, and enable the transfer of
the landlord function for the library building. This could allow LOSC to access the new
premises whilst retaining its primary focus as an out of school provider. For the wider
community, it could provide a more strategic and integrated approach to considering a
wider range of development issues in the village, and be consistent with growing
national policy aspirations for local communities to take greater control over the design
and delivery of services. It would also avoid the danger of the development of a single
building triggering a process of ‘musical chairs’ in usage - with unforeseen and
potentially adverse longer term consequences.
Recommendations
As consequence, the headline recommendations from this study are that:
LOSC maintains and interest in moving to the library building on the basis of a
development schedule that may move from options 1 and 3 as detailed in section 13,
and supports consideration of the wider Lochwinnoch Childcare Centre option -
suggested as option 5
LOSC seeks as quickly as practical to transfer the leadership of future developments
regarding the future of the library to another community vehicle with a wider remit. This
should include this vehicle advancing any future landlord or potential community
ownership options
For the time being, LOSC continues to develop its services from the primary school -
recognising that these arrangements are working well and have significant attractions
33
Suggested actions
Given the uncertainty of the speed of decisions on library title issues, and what the outcome
of these may be, it is not possible to produce a detailed and time-lined action plan at this
stage. But we would suggest that the following actions are now considered:
1. LOSC should agree the main finding of this feasibility study: that LOSC remains
interested in options 1 and 3 of this report, which may involve a future move of their
operating base to the library building.
2. LOSC communicates this by sharing this report with relevant officers in Renfrewshire
Council.
3. LOSC continues to track developments with regard to the library title issues, and is
prepared to move quickly if these enable LOSC to move to the building. (Speed may be
very important given the timeframes to apply for LEADER funding).
4. Dependant on a positive outcome of title issues, LOSC or an identified lead partner,
should commission the suspended architects study on the library building. Dependent on
wider progress, the brief should add specific consideration of operating a day nursery
service within the building. This feasibility report should be made available to the
appointed company.
5. For the time being, LOSC should progress ongoing operation of the out of school service
from their school base, and progress the limited service/occupancy developments
detailed in sections 6 and 7 of this report.
6. LOSC should further consider its own position with regard to the potential development
of the more ambitious Lochwinnoch Childcare Centre option, by addressing the issues
detailed in section 13 above.
7. LOSC should forward this report to LMEG and any other relevant local groups in respect
to (a) the potential to develop a Lochwinnoch Community Development Trust, (b) the
options/possibility of this or another structure taking the leaseholder/landlord/ownership
role for the library building in the longer term, and (c) the potential role of a
Development Trust in pioneering the wider Childcare Centre vision.
8. LOSC, or an identified alternative lead partner, should apply at the earliest opportunity
for capital and revenue support from LEADER via the contact footnoted in section 13.
34
Appendix 1 - questionnaire template for community group survey
Organisation details
1. Name of group/club:
2. Brief description of what they do:
What is their capacity/how many people attend:
Premises:
3. What premises do they use:
4. What type of space is this (room in a hall etc):
5. Times/days of the week:
6. What do they pay for using this space:
Current/future requirements
7. Are the current arrangements suitable:
8. What would be better? - prompt for specific issues around:
a. Capacity/space
b. Storage requirements
c. Costs
d. Access/times/availability
e. Particular requirements of the group or club (eg sprung floor for gym
classes etc)
Perceived suitability of the library building - advantages/disadvantages:
