Old St Paul’s Action Group – Community Uses Working Party

(draft #1.1, March 2007  - adopted 18th April) -  minor additions by original author (KM) in square brackets

- Serving a complementary mix of constructive and convivial uses by a wide range of non-profit community groups and organisations.

We hope to achieve either i) or ii) below, or maybe i) on the way to ii)

i)                    Ownership vested in Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust who would lease the building as a single entity to a unified self-management body;

ii)                   Ownership vested directly in a purpose designed [building preservation] trust.

Management:

We envisage a unified management committee including representatives from each of the participating stakeholders:

Majority Category A) the non-profit organisations and community and ethnic groups actually using the building;

Minority Category B) representatives of other public bodies and trusts involved or concerned.

This unified management body will be empowered to create such working groups and such functional allocations of space(s) within the building as they shall see fit, subject to periodic review at properly advertised meetings where all participating parties shall have a chance to express their views, hear proposals and work to achieve consensus.

We recognise that both ownership and management structures should be developed not as ends in themselves but as responsive means to facilitate community uses of the building which serve community and social needs which are currently unmet or poorly met. In this context we see the need for a socially inclusive ethos of self-help, mutual aid, and a norm of volunteering so that a wide range of people in Perth come to ‘own’ the project as a largely informal, friendly, inclusive, free access or inexpensive environment – in short as an ‘us’ place, not a ‘Them’ place.

Funding:

We envisage purchase and restoration capital costs can be met through association with the Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust and other civic and archeological trusts, who might in fact become the building’s owners (at least for a trial period – see above). However we will need to seek funding from other sources, such as the lottery communities fund, which places a lot of emphasis on social inclusion and participation.

Economic realism:

At the same time we also recognise that any management or co-management structure should be such as enables participants to collectively develop, implement and  monitor an economically viable non-profit ‘business’ plan, which is able at a minimum to

a)      cover project running costs;

b)      set aside some extra for depreciation costs

1)      Popular/demonstrable support – or sound reasons to think the usage proposed would be well supported by the community sector concerned;

2)      The proposed usage should not clash with its position in the city, nor other building/group uses.

3)      The proposed usage should be compatible with the architecture and listed status of the building.

4)      Sustainable – providing a future for the building.

Uses/projects identified so far:

·        An international friendship and drop-in centre for Perth’s different communities to meet in, in an informal, relaxed, inexpensive environment – and meet each other too – Scots, English, Asian, Polish, Chinese, visitors, etc. [possible  advice bureau and  language learning]

·        Drop in centre for people with mental health or physical difficulties and their carers.

·        A ‘social firm’ where people with disabilities can find sheltered work, making things or in a café.

·        A participatory community arts centre, involving art therapy, young people’s art projects, etc.

·        Art gallery, cultural/music and tourist information centre.

·        A Fair trade centre for Perth and Scotland.

·        Young people’s drop in centre, recreation space - [and 'one stop shop' for youth services].