Back to the NAF committee page
We asked the Charities Commission for their response to some inaccurate statements made by one of the contributors in the October 2007 MADNews. Here are all the communications...
Dear Mr Anderson
Thank you for your e.mail regarding the Arthur Anson Trust and your concerns about letters in a local newsletter.
I would comment as follows on the page I have seen from your local newsletter. Please feel free to copy this e-mail to the editor of this newsletter.
I note that the October 2007 edition of your newsletter included a letter which stated 'If the Anson Trust folds and the Charity Commission sells off the Field, do you think the housing developer who buys it will care about anything like that?'.
The Charity Commission does not have power to sell charity land. The future of the Arthur Anson Trust and whether any sale goes ahead will be determined by the trustees of the Trust, not the Charity Commission. If the trustees propose a sale of the Trust's land, they will need to ensure that they obtain the best market price for that land. The trustees should consult with the local inhabitants to find out what is needed in the local area.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Victoria Crandon (Mrs) Senior specialist caseworker
We replied as follows
Dear Mrs Crandon,
Thank you for your very helpful reply, a copy of which I am forwarding to the Editor of our local parish magazine, together with this following enquiry back to you. We are pleased that The Trust has an obligation to consult with local residents and thank you for your clarification on the powers the Commission has in the circumstances previously referred to.
The Anson Trust is currently working on an ambitious plan to secure its future solvency but there may be a more satisfactory alternative as their current plan may carry significant risks. The trust has another asset in "The Institute" (the local village hall), a much loved building. For various reasons this has been allowed to deteriorate to a condition where it is barely useable. We acknowledge that the trust has an obligation to obtain the best possible price if it sells any of its assets; however in an initiative involving both our District and County Councillors a local benefactor has just rekindled his earlier offer to purchase the Institute site. I believe it is his intention to refurbish the building and then hand it back to the village to run and finance in the same way that most village halls are.
Consequently the benefactor's probable offer to The Trust may not be as much as if the Institute were placed on the open market for redevelopment (unencumbered by various obligations that The Institute in reality carries with it). In this case it is essential to stress that it would not be a developer profiting from the purchase but that the entire village would benefit. The village are of course the first Object of the May 2005 Scheme governing the Trust and in this way the Institute would once more become the focus of many village activities. The Trust would receive a substantial sum of money, which would allow it to concentrate its resources on the Anson Field with its existing sports and recreation facilities. Clearly there are many details to be worked out but it would be helpful to know at an early stage if there could be some flexibility in the Commission's stated requirements to allow The Trust to accept what may be slightly less than market value for the purchase of our Institute.
We received this further reply on 30th October
Dear Mr Anderson
I have had recent detailed correspondence with the solicitors of the Arthur Anson Trust, in connection with their discussion and proposals about the future of the Trust. This includes selling the present land and purchasing replacement land. We have explained that consultation with beneficiaries of the Trust (ie those that use the facilities) should be undertaken before any plans implemented.
In connection with your specific question below about a local benefactor purchasing the Institute site, I can only answer this point in general terms. Section 36(3) of the Charities Act 1993 states that any sale of charity land needs to be on the best terms available. Section 36(9)(b) of the same Act states that this does not apply if the sale is to another charity which have the same trusts (ie the same objects). Therefore, if the purchaser was another charity with the same (or very similar) objects the sale does not need to be for the best terms available and could be sold at less than market value.
It would not be possible for the benefactor to purchase the Institute site at less than market value and say he was going to 'hand it back to the village to run'. If this proposal was to happen, a new charity would need to be set up with similar objects and if the trustees of the Arthur Anson Trust were in agreement, the property could be passed over at less than market value.
I wonder if the trustees would be happy to do this though, especially if one of the present plans it to purchase new land with the proceeds of sale.
Yours sincerely
Victoria Crandon
Victoria Crandon Senior Specialist Casework Manager
Dear Mr Anderson
Since sending the e.mail below, I had a thought that you may be interested in one of our publications on disposing of charity land, numbered CC28 and I enclose the link below.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/ccpubs3.asp
Yours etc etc....
Our conclusions from all the above:
Separation of the Institute into a new charity with the twin objects of its preservation and the provision of meeting facilities for the village would have some advantages including providing a simple to understand purpose for the necessary fund raising. Judging by the results of the NAF survey we suspect this prospect would also meet with considerably more approval in the village than the current Anson Trust proposals. This begs the question of whether sufficient volunteers could be found to administer another charity? Could the village persuade the Anson Trust to part with the institute? The Trust seem peculiarly determined to follow their own idea of what is best for Marcham however unpopular that is!
In the November 2007 MADNews the Anson Trust declared "its irrevocable decision ... to dispose of the (Institute) site" Why irrevocable? Have the residents of Marcham no say in what is to become of the village? Have the Trust run out of reasoned arguments now so they need to try and convince the village "it must be this way" or are the frightened to publicly acknowledge that there COULD be a future for the Institute as a village hall because this would in turn weaken their arguments for turning much of the Anson Field into a housing development?
Back to the NAF committee page