Rent: The suggested figure of £590 per annum, together with £103 VAT, is £693 that will be required each year, which is £673 more than the Club has paid under the old terms. The peppercorn rent has received in excess of a 3,360% increase over a 28-year period. How’s that for inflation!
Repair: Under the old terms, maintenance of the premises was easily the most significant outlay for Local Government in making this facility available to the community. This was Local Government’s contribution towards the partnership with the Club which used to exist. Figures for maintenance of the premises are not available, as no separate account has been kept by Devon County Council (DCC). The Club is confident that maintenance has not exceeded an average of £1000 per annum historically, and an average of £800 might be a fair guess. However, this expense is not capped, and with the greatly increased threat of vandalism that has been evidenced since the field has been opened up, repairs could run into thousands of pounds. The Club is being required to shoulder an open-ended commitment if it accepts these terms. Consider also the impact that changes in the Insurance arrangements will have, which are noted below, when taken with the responsibility for repair.
Insurance: Under the old terms, insurance of the premises was covered by DCC at no cost to the Club. Public liability cover, and insurance to protect all Club personnel and Club activities, has been provided in the past few years by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) as a benefit of full affiliation. The insurance arranged by the LTA does not cover damage to the premises, or anything of that nature, but did replace the public liability policy which the Club maintained before the inception of the LTA scheme. The proposed new terms for a lease will require a charge to be met by the Club for incorporation into ECC’s block insurance, which would cover the premises only. It has been indicated that this is not likely to exceed £100.
The really serious point about the ECC insurance from the Club’s point of view is that there is a £5,000 excess clause. This means that it would be useless to the Club for any repair costing less than that figure. It has some value, however, as in the event of vandals torching the clubhouse, the Club’s liability is limited to £5,000. If the clubhouse were burnt down, the Club couldn’t abandon the premises until it “shall have substantively observed the terms and conditions of the Lease”, which in this instance means coughing up the necessary five grand!
Tenant’s Right to Use The Tennis Courts: The availability of the courts for exclusive use by the Club is severely restricted under the proposed new terms. The courts will be open to the public for about 65% of the time, leaving the remaining 35% for the Club’s exclusive use. Whereas the courts are free for use by the public, the Club will be required to pay £250 per annum to hire them for our playing members.
Works to be Carried Out Prior to Grant of the Lease: As if all the above wasn’t enough of a drain on the Club’s financial resources, it is also being required to fund “a new security fence with gates around the premises to a specification to be agreed by the Landlord.” This will cost thousands, rather than hundreds, of pounds.
The message is pretty obvious. It certainly appears that Local Government is after the Club’s money, and it seems to be seeking to milk the children. There is a hugely reduced security of tenancy inherent in these proposals, and there isn’t any security of tenure either as Local Government wishes the lease to be contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Local Government is expecting the Club to find more than £1,800 over and above its present commitments to pay for Council Tax, Water, Electricity, Administration, Fire Protection, First Aid Supplies, LTA Affiliation, etc.
This represents an increase of over £40 for each and every member’s subscription at least, based on our current membership. Trebling the annual subscription moves the Club away from the reach of the less affluent families in the community, and reinforces the popular notion that Tennis is a game for the elite only. The increased fee would not cover every eventuality, as the cost of repairs is open-ended. Furthermore, members will be getting far less for their money.
And then there is the cost of the security fencing to protect the clubhouse!
There seems to be a clear attempt to move the balance sheet entry for the Club from the public purse’s expenditure column to income column.
Local Government is destroying the Club by trying to place upon it an unbearable and inappropriate financial burden. Who is local government serving? Is the community really going to benefit by replacing a structured and supervised community facility for children by an unsupervised free for all open to the general public, and also to abuse?
The question has to be asked: “Can the Club afford to carry this financial burden on a sustainable basis?” Whether or not the Club would be able to attract and hold new members under the weight of this burden is something else which requires due consideration.
