Factory Future Meeting Minutes

Factory Future Working Group

Meeting on 21/05/08 at Normandy House

Minutes

Present: Peter Faithfull, Phil Foggitt, Julie Green, Diana Jones (minutes), Julie Payne, Anna Roderick, Jan Thatcher.

Apologies: Clare Brewster, Helen Collinson, Phil Spencer

Action from minutes of last meeting.

1. Value of site.

Peter had reported back by email, which had been circulated to everyone. There is no definite answer. For a proper valuation to be done it would cost us a few thousand, depending on the eventual valuation. Industrial sites have less value than other kinds of use. The old convent site is currently being bought for 1.2 million. A supermarket site in Cornwall was valued at 3 million per acre.

2. Ownership of leat.

Nick Graham has not reported back. We think either Devon County or EDDC might be the owners. In view of the flood prevention duties of the Environmental Agency, we thought they would know the answer. Phil said he would find out. ACTION Phil.

3. Design brief.

Clare had sent apologies that she had not had time to get some more info, so Helen has not been able to write the letter as yet. We decided to go ahead without the info, and Phil undertook to write to EDDC about the design brief. ACTION Phil.

4. English Heritage requirements for listed buildings.

Jan reported that she is still waiting for the university archaeology department to tell her who to contact. ACTION Jan.

5. Devon Reinvestment Service.

Yvonne had reported by email that she had sent Andrew Lightfoot's reply to Helen. Andrew Lightfoot is the teamleader of the DRS. Diana said she would arrange for its contents to be circulated. ACTION Diana.

6. Wessex Reinvestment Trust.

Anna said she had first spoken with Alison Ward, who gave some info on ways of raising funds, in particular through share issue schemes, for which we would have to set up an Industrial Provident Society. Investors would get interest, and tax relief on their investments. We would have to set a minimum investment to make the administration more weildy, and there is a legal maximum investment. These schemes work well for community-owned projects where the scheme is clear. A project in South Devon had been able to raise 95K. An organic farm in West England had raised 700K. These sums lever in further funds. WRT would charge us £600 + VAT to set up an IPS for us. In addition we would have to pay £500 to 1K for the regulating body to check that our IPS prospectus complies with requirements.

Anna had also been in contact with Steve Bendle. He is saying WRT will pay for him to do a feasibility outline for us on an employment development of the mill ground floor . This will involve him preparing very basic costings for us based on estimated revenue and capital costs. Any other work we will have to pay for. In reply to our interest in developing the whole site, he had said we would need bank loans which would be unlikely without a good business plan and a borrowing business partner who would provide the necessary solid asset and track record.

Diana said she had sent Steve various plans and measurements, and our proposal paper to assist him with the feasibility outline for a mill ground floor development. She will also send him an architectural thesis that Sheila Walker's son had done on the factory site two years ago, which contains more accurate drawings. This was passed round the meeting. Phil commented that although it contained some useful and interesting information, there was not much substance to it from our point of view, and there were no costings.

The discussion then turned to where we should go from here. We need to bear in mind that none of us can put in lots of time. What use do we want to make of Steve's time paid for by WRT? On the one hand Jeremy Sharpe had said Churchill has not formulated plans for the mill ground floor. This area is attractive to us because of the proximity of the tumbling weir, and the interest in resurrecting some hydro power capability, which would be an income-generator for us. On the other hand, the more downstream from the weir the turbine is sited the more power is obtainable. Also, the mill looks like the most expensive part of the site to bring up to scratch! One of the sheds on the main site would be more desirable costs-wise, but as this is probably in the area that Churchill would allocate to the supermarket, we would hardly be likely to make any progress at all here. Jeremy Sharpe had explained that the site had to be approached as a whole, with some parts making up for the problems of others, in terms of making a profit, or, in our terms, producing an income. But then, we return to the first point that we do not have enough people with enough time to take on any project of obtaining community control over the whole site. Furthermore, could any useful indent on the bigger project to acquire the whole site, be made by use of Steve's free (to us) time? We need to bear in mind that Steve's offer has been made in order to forestall any abandonment by EDDC of their employment designation on the site. If we asked him to consider instead S106 development, again there may be nothing useful he can do for us at this point, especially as S106 only comes in once a plan is on the EDDC table. Diana said she will email Steve about all this. Whatever he costs must be based on our proposal and give a reasonable return to the community. Phil offered to answer any questions he might have of us. ACTION Diana and Phil.

7. Factory Action survey.

Jan tabled the survey, which took place in 2004. There had been 400 questionnaires completed. Only 3 people said they wanted a supermarket!

8. Date of next meeting.

July 2nd at Normandy House, 7.30pm