SOS website news

The SOS website has recently been updated and a “addendum” to the SOS business plan (pdf) has also been added, this can be found at the bottom of the “What’s proposed page” after appendices.

Also a new page has been added called 50’s Child, this is a series of black and white photographs of children at ivinghoe old school in the 1950’s. We would very much like you to try and identify these children for us, so please take a look and let us know.

July 2nd 2012 minutes


      Group Meeting in the Rose & Crown, Ivinghoe, 

      2nd July 2012 at 8.00pm



Carol Tarrant

Bob Corn

Jane Custance

Martin McCormack

Alex Wynne

John Wallis

Mike Custance

Alistair Owens

Nigel Thomson     APOLOGIES: John Wallis

Carol welcomed everyone to the meeting, called to respond to a communication received from Buckinghamshire County Council in reply to our 30th May 2012 Business Plan Submission.

Ivinghoe Beacon report: Nigel was briefed as to progress, and was given an update on activities in April, May and June, for his piece in the Beacon – he shortly afterwards left the meeting.

Responses to the Buckinghamshire County Council (B.C.C.) note: 

Evidence of Lease Offered last offered to Ivinghoe Parish – Carol and Bob had hard copy of the lease offered to Ivinghoe Parish on 16th June 2012 (ref. E 12/20/1 CP0002.135, sent by Fiona Bull, Legal Assistant); this lease had been offered in the sum of £1,375 per annum, not £3,600 which Bob had previously been advised verbally – this clarification to be made to B.C.C.

Only information on structural works required is that suggested in the B.C.C. Visual Survey, and referred to in Business Case Appendix 4.0 Gant Chart – this latter anticipating works being carried out by B.C.C. The meeting felt that we should ask for the Structural Survey report, as we have previously – if some of the works are deferred, then clearly we would need to reduce rental in space affected; it does appear that the suggested work could be carried out by January 2013.

We do not believe the Financial Models reveal a cash deficit, indeed they show a small cash surplus. A deficit is shown, but this is depreciation – not a cash item; we break even from Day 1. Main depreciation is on gifted assets – smaller items such as computers are subject to grant acquisition, and replacement by similar grant acquisition.

‘Real Numbers’ are used in the Financial Models, consistent with a not-for-private-profit organisation – if inflation were to be applied to income and expenditure figures, all that would happen is that the small surplus would increase. It is intended that inflation will be factored into our leases to tenants.

£16,350 income equals £15,000 rental income plus £1,350 for ‘Cyb-Org’ internet space use; the £1,200 is an anticipation of income from Community Fundraising, Children’s Parties, etc. The figure of £18,800 recharges is the amount of money estimated as being re-charged to tenants for utilities, services, refuse collection, etc.; the figure of £1,200 was included in our conservative projections of income, but not included in the Financial Models since we wished to err on the side of caution for income.

The lack of a firm undertaking from B.C.C. prevents us from seeking firm funding; a number of funding sources have been identified, and we have had an indication of support – although cannot proceed since we neither yet have a long lease, nor the freehold, for the building. We have been advised from some sources that it would be easier to obtain funding if we held the freehold.

Deficits identified in the Financial Models are non-cash depreciation – as in a previous answer.

The figure in Section 6.0 for Building Work – £54,200 – will in all probability contain overlaps with B.C.C.’s figure of £145,850 – and we feel that this latter figure contains elements which could well be carried out in our tenants’ fit-out work.

Start-up costs for tenants will be paid for by themselves.

The Architectural Heritage Fund has not yet been formally approached – they are one of a number of options available as potential funding sources. Since we may not need such a loan, no provision has as yet been shown in Financial Models.

‘Safe Cycle Storage’ reference was that of ‘seeking to provide’ the storage; this can be minimal (hoops set in paving, to which one can lock one’s cycle) or it could be a rather more expensive cycle store (but less than £1,000), in which case we would seek grant funding.

Note that the Financial Models cover Volunteers’ Costs – we anticipate that tenant groups would pay their own costs in this regard.

Alistair will look at the totals noted in the Financial Models.

The £1,600 figure is the cost in providing four computers; the figure of £16,000 is a total fit-out cost of the ‘Cyb-Org’ internet suite – additional I.T. equipment (printers, fax, telephony), tables, seating, shelving, security system, etc. This latter figure has been discussed with the BIG Lottery Fund, who have indicated support but who cannot take it further due to lack of a lease!

We anticipate breaking even from Day 1 – deficit in the Financial Models is an accounting loss in depreciation.

Maintenance allowance is the cumulative raising of funds for perhaps larger items as well as day-to-day maintenance – replacement glass in windows, doors, etc., as required in use. Single £1,200 in first month to get things up and running, £200 per month thereafter – should be in both models.

Cannot revise our timeline, since we do not know when we might obtain the building – as mentioned in earlier response, the Structural Survey is critical in works planning.

Business Financial Models – options 1 and 3 not considered as we have never considered taking on full structural maintenance in the full rent lease scenario; options 2 and 4 have been offered as Option A and Option B in our Business Case. B.C.C.’s option 5 is our preferred option of those listed, since that would allow us the freedom to seek funding from appropriate grant funding agencies.

If the value of the Property increases within a rental agreement, then the rental agreement could contain a reference to our not exercising our option to purchase – any profits would thus revert back to B.C.C.


Next Move: Bob to circulate these notes, Jane and Mike to prepare a draft formal reply to B.C.C., which will be circulated to this immediate group for comment (hopefully by 5th or 6th July); if time allows we might show it to a ‘friendly’ lawyer known to us – Carol to then formally respond to B.C.C. by 9th July 2012.


Next Meeting: To be decided.














July 2nd 2012 BCC feedback Questions



Group Meeting in the Rose & Crown, Ivinghoe, 

July 2nd 2012 at 8.00pm  

BCC feedback questions on May 2012 Business Plan (CT in chair)

Welcome to all SOS interested parties! Minutes, Apologies.

1 Update Nigel on SOS news for Beacon Magazine article due in.

2   BCC Finance have reviewed the stage 2 bid document for the Business Investment Group (BIG) and require the following clarifications before it is presented to BIG.  If we want to make the 26 July BIG meeting, Jackie Wesley believes we would need to get the updated information back by 10-12 July. Where they have phrased questions they would expect the answers to be addressed within the business case, not necessarily listed for instance, as an appendix:

·         Provide evidence of the £3,600 rent paid by Ivinghoe Parish Council.  We have £5,500 listed in our documents as the last lease amount paid.

·         Due to the nature of a number of the structural works required is it likely that the building will not be available wholly for the entire rental income period?  What is the likelihood of the works being completed and funding being secured before the start date of your financial model January 2013 for either the Council or yourselves?  If the work is spread over a specified period, e.g. 5 years, rather than carried out at the start will this have a different impact on rental income?  How will this be dealt with as the financial models in the business case already indicate a deficit? (The request to demonstrate how SOS would achieve funding and work around the necessary structural works as outlined in bullet point two, JW believes, relates mainly to the request from BCC relating to the potential option for model 5.)

·         There is no sensitivity modelling to take into account inflation.  The financial models indicate that rental income will be fixed with expenditure remaining at the same levels.  Whilst the long term intention is to have the two businesses have their utilities individually metered, what is the contingency plan in the meantime if costs such as these increase?  Is the intention to increase rental income?  How will inflation be dealt with generally?

·         In section 3 annual income from rent is expected to be £16,350 p.a. plus £1,200 p.a. from additional community use and fundraising.  The financial model indicates £15k p.a. for rental income, £18.8k for recharges and £1,350 for other income.  Why is there a difference?  The impact of this difference could affect the deficit/loss.

·         What will be the impact if funding cannot be secured for the building works?  What is the contingency plan?

·         What is the contingency plan to address deficits identified in the financial models?

·         In section 6 there are start-up costs of around £80k which includes £54,200 for building costs.  Can you confirm that the £54,200 is in addition to the estimated £145,850 indicated for building works in the survey provided by property?

·         Also, there are start-up costs relating to the businesses that will be renting space at the building.  Will these amounts e.g. for the kitchen, costume storage be recharged to these businesses or is the Community Group incurring these costs?

·         One of the proposed funding streams from the Architectural Heritage Fund includes low interest loans. How will the interest expenditure be covered?  There isn’t a provision in the financial model.

·         Within the environmental policy a ‘safe cycle’ storage in mentioned, what is the cost and where is it shown?

·         Will the volunteers be paying for their own training or CRB checks if required?

·         Review the calculations in the financial models, for instance some of the totals do not add up, e.g. total spend in option A, year 1 is shown as £17,540 but is actually circa £32k.

·         The computer equipment is stated as £1,600 in section 6 but appears as £16k in the financial model.  Is this a typo?

·         When is the group expecting to break even?  Even with removing the rental charge to BCC the financial models highlight a loss.

·         What is the maintenance cost made up of?  What is the basis of reducing the maintenance spend in years 2-5 in option B?

·         What are the revised timelines?  A number of the deadlines in the gant chart have been missed.

With regards to the financial models we will require the models as per the original advice dated 26th January (email) and 27th January (letter), plus the preferred option mention in the second paragraph in the executive summary in the business case.  I have specified below the request:

1.    25 year lease with rent indicated at £5,500 p.a. with the Council first putting the building in good order and all maintenance responsibilities being transferred to the Community Group (as originally specified)

2.    25 year lease with rent indicated at £5,500 p.a. with the Community Group having internal/limited maintenance responsibilities and the Council retaining structural maintenance responsibilities only (as originally specified)

3.    25 year lease with rent indicated at £0 p.a. for an initial period to be agreed with the Council first putting the building in good order and all maintenance responsibilities being transferred to the Community Group (as originally specified)

4.    25 year lease with rent indicated at £0 p.a. for an initial period to be agreed with the Community Group having internal/limited maintenance responsibilities and the Council retaining structural maintenance responsibilities only (as originally specified)

5.    Leasehold at £1 p.a. for all years with the potential for a freehold option later and full maintenance responsibilities (including structural) as the building currently stands passed over to the community group 

What happens if the value of the property increases???  Funds for purchase

Jacqueline Boosey 

Project Support Officer 

Centre of Expertise – Projects and Commercial Accountancy 

Finance and Commercial Services  



Next meeting to be arranged as needed.