Table of Contents

Purpose of the report 3

Background. 3

Methodology. 4

Level of Provision. 5

Data Quality. 6

Catchment areas 6

Findings & conclusions 8

Overall provision. 8

Distribution. 8

Halls in Council ownership. 13

 

 

 

 

Purpose of the report

 

This report sets out to identify all community halls within the Borough in order to assess current provision.

Background

 

The Council’s Community Asset Transfer Strategy and Policy Statement agreed by Cabinet at its meeting in July 2009 set out the Council’s overarching policy objectives for the management of its community halls:

 

The council supports strong and sustainable community and voluntary sector organisations (CVSOs) as key partners in the delivery of services and in providing a link with local communities.  Working in partnership with thriving CVSOs can assist the council in achieving the outcomes as enshrined in its Sustainable Community Strategy that will benefit local communities. 

 

The council recognises that the way its physical assets are managed can have a positive impact on the long-term strength of third sector and local communities more generally.  Through long-term lease arrangements or asset ownership, CVSOs can grow and become more secure.  The council’s aim is to ensure that the way assets are managed strongly underpins wider corporate aims and where appropriate, will use long-term leases or asset transfer as a means of enabling third sector organisations to become sustainable.  To be successful, long-term leases or asset transfer requires a partnership approach on the part of the council and the CVSO.

 

This strategy and policy statement applies to all the council’s physical assets including land, buildings and other structures used for a variety of different social, community and public purposes.  To more effectively exploit these assets, to build stronger and more sustainable communities, the policy will have the following specific aims directly related to community management and ownership.  These should be that any solution adopted for a specific building or piece of land should:

 

·         benefit the local community

·         benefit the council and other public sector service providers[1]

·         benefit the organisation taking ownership[2]

·         strengthen the community and voluntary sector as a whole in Maidstone

 

As part of an ongoing review of community halls and to underpin the community asset transfer (CAT) process, Action for Communities in Kent were commissioned to undertake a high level audit of existing community buildings as a first step in this process.   Additionally at its meeting of 22 September 2009 Cabinet received a report on community halls and agreed “that a decision on how to close the funding gap in respect of the council’s community halls be deferred until a full audit and review of community halls in the borough has been carried out in order to establish a strategy and framework for delivering community hall provision.  The objective is to achieve a balanced budget in respect of the council’s funding of community halls and an appropriate and sustainable network of good quality community facilities.”

 

The Borough Council would need to consider a community hall’s perpetual use for the benefit of the community if it does follow the asset transfer route. Grassroots organisations can lack the resources to tackle the asset transfer process. Therefore it is essential to consider other transfer models, including long-term leases or peppercorn rent, which promote community empowerment for local organisations, but provide the Borough Council with the benefit of being able to monitor and ensure a community hall’s ongoing usage for the community’s benefit.

 

This report is prepared in response to Cabinet’s request and as recommended in the initial ACRK report the aim of the full audit was to:

 

• Collect data relating to all the community halls within the borough;
• Map hall provision against local populations and settlements using the council’s Geographical Information System (GIS).  Information to include internal facilities and condition, geographical reach, range and breadth of activities and community support, and communities and community subsections served;
• Develop a set of consistent standards in respect of them;
• Use this data to remodel and consolidate provision in order to achieve greater economies of scale, create potential for sustainability and establish a closer link between provision and community need;
• Enable the council to make strategic decisions in respect of the management and development of its community assets and to ensure it is providing value for money.

 

It should be noted that Officers were invited to attend a meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 22 September 2009 to discuss the ACRK report.  The Committee was asked if it wished to participate in or contribute to the proposed review but declined.  It may be appropriate for Overview and Scrutiny to consider the next phase of the Strategy as part of its future work programme.

Methodology

 

The following methodology was used to carry out the audit:

Stage 1:  Definition of Community Hall Facility - It was essential to determine exactly what the definition of a Community Hall should be in order to provide clarification for all those interviewed for the purpose of this audit.  The agreed definition is set out below:

 

1)    A community hall is a building that has as its primary function the provision of a space for general community activities and is available for the public to hire.   The facilities should be used primarily by the community and / or the voluntary sector (for example, meeting rooms at Pizza Express Maidstone don’t count as the site is primarily used for commercial business).   That said, as long as the facility meets this criteria, it doesn’t matter whether it is privately or publicly owned.

2)    The activities that can be supported in the community facilities can include group activities (e.g. wine & wisdom night, birthday parties, Mothers Union), sports activities (e.g. badminton, volleyball), social support (e.g. Play group, coffee mornings), public information, etc.   Essentially, it should be there to support local community activity in all its forms.

3)    There should be no required prerequisite to be a member of a club, company or religious or cultural group in order to hire the facility.

Stage 2: Scope of Community Hall Audit - A questionnaire was devised that requested a large amount of information including hall capacity, details of bookings and facilities.  It was designed to provide a high level of quantative data and minimal qualitative data.  It is envisioned that a follow-up questionnaire can be designed to determine more qualitative information such as financial position and current building state of repair for each of the community facilities as and when required.

Stage 3: Initial Data Gathering Exercise (internal) - The initial data gathering of community halls took information from GIS, Registration Services, Corporate Property, Planning Policy, KCC Corporate Property and work done previously by ACRK.  This information was standardised detailing contact details and site addresses and was then updated by GIS with the unique property reference numbers (UPRN) of each site in order to plot them on the GIS mapping system.

Stage 4: Development of a Database - This was run concurrently with Stage 2 and Stage 3.  The UPRN for each building is used as the unique identifier, enabling GIS to map each site on a map of the Borough. 

Stage 5: Initial Data Gathering Exercise (external verification) - It was determined that Councillors were likely to have local knowledge and were the most effective route to determine how comprehensive the list of community halls gathered thus far was.  The database was used to create letters to each Ward member, detailing the community hall facilities that the council had identified as being in their area, along with the definition of stage 1.  Councillors were then asked to comment on the list identifying any inaccuracies or omissions.

Stage 6:  Detailed Questionnaire to Identified Community Facilities - Following the updates received from Councillors, a telephone survey was carried out with community halls.  This was considered to be the best route for collating responses.    A review of Village Halls 10 year report from ACRE achieved a response rate to their paper survey was 11% nationwide.  The Maidstone survey 99 responses, approximately a 60% response.

It was undertaken that any reports written with regards to the Community Hall audit would be made available to the halls that responded as a matter of course and this has been communicated to all those who have taken part thus far.  As such, this report will be distributed accordingly.

Stage 7: Analysis of Data and Report Writing - The database was interrogated and provision for each ward has been analysed. 

Level of Provision

 

As well as collecting data in respect of community halls within the borough it has been necessary to assess the level of provision that would be appropriate for a district of Maidstone’s size.  It should be noted that there are no specific national standards for the provision of community facilities, although best practice has been considered in the form of the guidance outlined in the publication “Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality” a handbook for planners, designers, developers and community groups.

 

The publication focuses on the physical fabric of neighbourhoods, and has been used by other local authorities, for example by the Borough of Broxbourne in a study of their ‘Community Facility’ report and by Wycombe Borough Council in a study to determine S106 Community Facility amenities.  Critically the guide suggests that the catchment population required to sustain one community centre is around 4,000 people.

 

Using the above guide the population of 148,000 (Census 2011) would support approximately 35 community halls or centres, this audit has confirmed that there are actually at least 99 dedicated community facilities in the district, though they are not all publicly available for hire.

Data Quality

 

Using the figure 1:4,000 as a guide for community hall catchment areas, the available data may be analysed in many different ways; straightforward numerical analysis by ward based on best practice, a combination of numerical analysis and gap analysis by either ward or geographical areas, or a more complex analysis taking into account the three-dimensional landscape together with numerical and/or gap analysis.

 

The data used was the most up to date available as at 20 June 2010.  However, it is acknowledged that the data changes rapidly as facilities close, lettings’ policies change or buildings fall into states of disrepair.  It has been checked using website information and telephone contacts where possible – however there are gaps in the data as it has not been possible to ascertain key information for a number of facilities.

 

There are numerical differences between the number of community facilities available and the number available for hire due to some facilities not hiring out to all parties. It should also be noted that not all community facilities are available seven days a week – some are not available at certain times during the day, they may not be suitable for a specific activity, or are in a poor state of repair.  Some have restrictions about who may hire them (for example not for teenage parties, nor at weekends) and some facilities are too big, too small or too expensive for use by community groups.

 

This report has not attempted to define what is meant by use of community facilities, as the concept of "community use" is very diverse.  People want access to community facilities for a wide range of reasons such as small meetings, indoor sport, arts and craft activities, dances, open public meetings, brownies/guides, conferences, parties etc.  The facilities identified in this report are also very varied in terms of size, accessibility, potential uses, cost, permitted uses etc.

 

This study has only been able to look at provision in a very generic way and when there is the opportunity to develop new community facilities or make improvements to existing ones, there will need to be a more detailed analysis of local provision.  From research undertaken, people’s reasons for using community facilities varied from a community coffee morning,  toddler group, ballet class, swimming lessons for youngsters, older people lunch clubs and social meetings, babies’ clinics, badminton, in-door lawn bowls, whist drives, martial arts – often requiring very different types of provision in terms of accessibility, room size, and cost.

 

Finally there have been no physical checks on the quality of the structure of the available facilities – a secondary survey would be able to ask for building status on each site, but even then professional opinions would need to be sought if this was required.

Catchment areas

 

In looking at the most suitable catchment areas for community facilities, the measures that other authorities or planners had used were considered to ascertain whether these calculations fitted with the results.

 

There is a huge variation in travel time that people are prepared to make – those who were extremely local to the facility (“It’s just over the road, so I pop over for a coffee”) to people prepared to travel over 30 miles to reach a specific class (“We come here for the dance class as the teacher is marvellous”).

 

The distance people are prepared to travel to reach a suitable community facility varies enormously – the Public Transport Accessibility plan states that “most people are prepared to walk 500m to a bus stop” and the Countryside Agency in determining their catchment areas, recommend that ideally people should be “within 4 km of a bank / cash point, within 4 km of a doctors surgery, within 2 km of a primary school, and within 4 km of secondary school.”

 

Broxbourne Borough Council’s ‘PPG 17 Technical Study and Sub-strategy Action Plans’ looked at how far respondents were willing to travel to access indoor community facilities.  For the two types of provision for which there was an overall preference for walking, (indoor youth clubs and playgroup spaces), the 75% threshold level was a 15-minute walk time.  The remaining types of indoor facilities had a 15 minute drive time, with the exceptions of medium and large hire facilities where the expected drive time would be 20 minutes.

 

The assumptions based on walk time catchment areas were that:

 

• Average walking speed is 3 miles per hour;
  
  
• National guidelines reduce actual distances into straight line distances by 40%. This reflects the fact that routes are not always straight-line distances. The 40% reduction is based on robust research by FIT (Fields in Trust) in numerous areas using a representative sample of pedestrian routes.

 

A 15 minute walk time translates to a distance of 0.75 miles or 1,200 metres.  National guidelines reduce actual distance into straight-line distances by 40%, which gives a distance of 720 metres.

 

Consultants PMP who produced the Open Space Standard Setting Study for Wycombe District Council (based upon the Scott Wilson Open Spaces Study of 2005) also used a 15 minute walk as a catchment for outdoor facilities.  For the sake of consistency and ease of comparison with this study, this distance has also been used as the catchment area for community facilities within the urban areas of Maidstone.

 

It is recognised that rural facilities will have a larger catchment area as people are prepared to travel further to them (as the consultation highlighted).  The Wycombe District Council report showed that 28% of people were prepared to travel up to one mile to visit a community facility, with a further 32% prepared to travel up to two miles – far exceeding the 720 m catchment used in urban areas.  It is proposed therefore that 1.5 mile radius (30 minute walk time) would be more appropriate for rural areas.  This translates to a 1,440m catchment.

 

Findings and Conclusions

Overall provision

 

From the study, 99 community halls were identified within the borough of Maidstone.  Based on 4,000 people per facility, it can be shown that the council has a suitable level of provision generally across the borough (99 Community halls/centres for 138,948 people working out at a provision level of 1,494 people per community centre).

 

Using the catchment area sizes identified above of 720m for the urban area and 1440m for rural areas, the table attached at appendix 1 shows the number of properties within the catchment areas of each community facility.  There are a total of 80,625 properties in the borough of Maidstone, though it should be noted this is a mix of private dwellings and business properties (especially in the urban area).  Note also that the properties within the catchment areas may appear in up to 7 catchment areas each because of overlap of areas.

 

Even so, only 6,309 properties out of the 80,625 lie outside of the catchment area of any community hall, or 7.8% of the total number of properties.  These properties are almost exclusively in rural areas.

 

Distribution

 

Using GIS the community halls were plotted and analysed on a map.  A4 maps included in the appendices show:

 

·         Mapped Halls in Urban and Rural areas (identified with table on pages 5-7);

·         Maidstone properties that lie outside of the catchment zone;

 

·         Hall Capacities

 

·         An analysis of individuals living in the borough by socio-economic groupings.

 

Map 1 below shows the overall distribution of community halls within the borough categorized as urban and rural. Important headlines from this analysis show:

 

·         All wards have at least one community hall

 

·         Some wards have over 5 community halls e.g. Bearsted, Cox Heath & Hunton, Marden & Yalding

 

Map 1 – Community halls urban & rural split

 

Map 2 below shows halls with catchment areas.  It is helpful to consider this analysis alongside map 3 which shows all properties falling outside of the catchment of the halls.  As previously stated only 7.8% of the properties in Maidstone are outside of the catchment area of the community hall facilities identified. 

 

Map 2 – Community halls urban & rural with catchments

 

Map 3 – Properties outside of community hall catchments – please note the map depicts the greatest, shortest and average distance above the standard length.

 

It can also be tentatively concluded that halls in rural areas are generally self well managed and used because of community structure and political structures (parishes); in urban areas these structures are often absent or less well defined.  In rural areas, the sense of community is closely aligned to village life – there are many dedicated community facilities that serve village populations, although there may be fewer than 4,000 people in these rural communities.

 

Looking specifically at the rural area in a number of wards e.g. Staplehurst, Coxheath & Hunton, North Downs there are incidents of clustering where catchments overlap.  Whilst this may be a feature of geography and community distribution it is not the most efficient distribution, however it must be remembered that as only a small number of halls are owned by the Council, it can therefore have only limited influence on this phenomenon.  Where possible through the application of appropriate planning mechanisms (S106 monies, etc), this should be reduced, although it is not of urgent concern.

 

Looking at this in more detail, the analysis focused on Bearsted ward that has 7 different community facilities (comprising a mix of large and small facilities that cover most eventualities - see Map 4 below).  These facilities are all regularly booked and have very few vacant slots.  It is also well below the density of 4,000 people per community facility (there are 9,500 people in Bearsted, meaning there is one facility for every 1,357 people).  Despite this, during the survey the author had numerous conversations with owners / managers of the halls in that area telling us they needed additional facilities as there was burgeoning demand within the ward. 

 

It is unclear what this demonstrates.  It may be that there is an unusually high usage of community hall facilities in Bearsted.  It may also be that the facilities in other wards are considered to be of such low quality that people travel beyond the catchment areas suggested, visiting the halls in Bearsted?   The data collected on capacity is shown in map 4 below:

 

Map 4 – Community hall capacity

In addition to the geographic data, MOSAIC data (A consumer classification system which is widely used by organisations in the commercial and public sector to analyse the socio-economic composition of UK consumers at household address or postcode) was used to help understand possible usage pattern.

From the MOSAIC information there are potentially correlations with group need for community facilities.  For example:

 

·         K&M 4 – Middle income couples with young children. Might use play groups / nurseries and other children’s services more than others.

 

·         K&M 8 – Families with young children living in social housing. Could be heavy users of public services which may include community halls.

 

·         K&M 9 – Low income pensioners. Might be more likely to use halls for social gatherings.

 

·         K&M 10 – Retirees and Active Pensioners. Tends to join a wide range of local services and community groups”. “Social networks of well informed individuals that are aware of events and services that apply to themselves.

 

·         K&M 11 – Rural communities with high number of commuters …in which many of the population are in their late 40s, 50s and early 60s, but where poor access to local services make life difficult for older and less mobile pensioners.

 

Map 5 –MOSAIC groupings 4, 8, 9 and 10

 

The halls appear clustered around MOSAIC types but there are exceptions where a small number of halls are not located in the proximity of the K&M MOSAIC groupings. Further research is required to establish useage of these halls.

 

 

Halls in Council ownership

 

The Borough Council owns a number of community hall buildings, but currently only operates 2 halls in the borough, which are;

 

·                Fant Hall

·                Heather House

 

The management of Senacre Hall was transferred to Kent County Council in 2010 and has been redeveloped as a Skills Studio.

 

The maintenance of the above halls falls within the remit of Maidstone Borough Council. The table below details the maintenance costs associated with each hall between 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. It should be noted that whilst the planned maintenance costs are relatively low, the reactive maintenance is significantly higher in most cases.

 

Community Hall	Reactive Maintenance	Planned Maintenance	Fire Risk Assessment	Fire Extinguisher Servicing
Heather House	£15,086.16	£3,869.72	£150.00	£100.00
Fant Hall	£3,098.13	£2,260.00	£150.00	£50.00

 

Proposed works for 2012 to 2013, include approximately £44,000 for the external redecoration and the sealing of an asbestos cement sheet roof at Heather House and approximately £28,000 to replace the heating system and sealing the asbestos cement roof at Fant Hall.

 

The Borough Council does not own any halls in the rural area, which are generally operated through parish councils, trusts or privately.

 

In relation to the other halls the Borough owns, but are currently leased to community organisations, these are set out below.

 

·                Beechwood Hall

·                Downswood Community Centre

·                Dunk Memorial Hall

·                Giddyhorn Lane Pavilion

·                Grove Green Community Centre

·                Penenden Heath Social Hall

·                Shepway Youth and Community Centre

·                Switch Youth Cafe

 

The majority of these halls are either leased in perpetuity or have long periods left in their respective leases, apart from Giddyhorn Lane, which has four years left. Council owned community halls are shown on map 6.

Map 6 – Community Hall ownership

 

From conversations during the survey there appears to be a high appetite for community hall provision manifested in high and regular usage of all the community facilities within most Wards, and indeed in the main the distribution appears to follow demand and geo-demographic patterns. A Voronoi analysis (which provides a decomposition of a metric space determined by distances to a specified discrete set of objects in the space, e.g., by a discrete set of points)  was undertaken to determine the spatial distance between each of the halls in the borough. The results are shown in Map 7 below:

 

Map 7 – Voronoi Distribution

The map above is a Voronoi diagram which has been created to associate all properties of the borough of Maidstone to their nearest community halls.  Any buildings contained within each polygon are nearest to the community hall within that polygon and not any other.  A count of the number of properties within each polygon has been carried out and is shown in the colour coded key to the diagram.

Given that a suggested parameter for hall usage is a population of 4,000 (based on a guide from “Neighbourhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality”), and working on an average property occupation of 2.3, then we can estimate that this equates to 1,700 properties per community hall. The map demonstrates that the majority of halls have a unique local population that is either considerably more or less than the 1,700 optimum.  It should be noted that this does not include any measure of demand for community halls within the area, nor the facilities contained within each one and also is not based on a strict measure of distance. 

 

 Appendix 1

 

Table 1: Number of properties within the catchment areas of each community facility

 

Prop ID	Ward	Type of Catchment Area (urban / rural)	Building Name	No. Buildings in Catchment	Population (catchment x 2.34av. pop)
1	ALLINGTON	U	St Nicholas Church Hall	2805	6563.7
3	ALLINGTON	U	Giddyhorn Lane Pavilion	2754	6444.36
				5559	13008.06
4	BARMING	U	Teston Village Hall	530	1240.2
5	BARMING	U	Barming Parish Hall	636	1488.24
				1166	2728.44
6	BEARSTED	U	Bearsted & Thurnham King George V Memorial Hall	1868	4371.12
7	BEARSTED	U	Women's Institute at Bearsted	947	2215.98
8	BEARSTED	U	Madginford Community Hall	2863	6699.42
9	BEARSTED	U	St Peter's Catholic Community Church	1734	4057.56
10	BEARSTED	U	Holy Cross Church	1280	2995.2
11	BEARSTED	U	Bearsted Methodist Church	1387	3245.58
12	BEARSTED	U	Bearsted & Thurnham Club	1098	2569.32
				11177	26154.18
13	BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA & CHART SUTTON	R	Boughton Monchelsea Village Hall	1167	2730.78
14	BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA & CHART SUTTON	R	Chart Sutton Village Hall	502	1174.68
				1669	3905.46
15	BOXLEY	R	Sandling Village Hall	594	1389.96
17	BOXLEY	R	Bredhurst Village Hall	251	587.34
18	BOXLEY	R	Grove Green Community Centre	2160	5054.4
19	BOXLEY	R	Beechen Hall (Boxley)	1752	4099.68
				4757	11131.38

 

Prop ID	Ward	Type of Catchment Area (urban / rural)	Building Name	No. Buildings in Catchment	Population (catchment x 2.34av. pop)
21	BRIDGE WARD	U	Allington Baptist Church	3046	7127.64
22	COXHEATH & HUNTON	U	Loose Parish Pavillion	1486	3477.24
23	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	Hunton Village Hall	285	666.9
24	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	Coxheath Village Hall	2695	6306.3
25	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	East Farleigh Womens Institute	1367	3198.78
26	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	East Farleigh Church Hall	1650	3861
27	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	Linton Village Hall	1182	2765.88
28	COXHEATH & HUNTON	R	The Scout Hut	2524	5906.16
				11189	26182.26
29	DETLING & THURNHAM	U	Weavering Village Hall	2435	5697.9
30	DETLING & THURNHAM	R	Detling Village Hall	410	959.4
				2845	6657.3
31	DOWNSWOOD & OTHAM	R	Otham Village Hall	2807	6568.38
32	DOWNSWOOD & OTHAM	U	Downswood Community Centre	2104	4923.36
33	DOWNSWOOD & OTHAM	U	Senacre Community Hall	2096	4904.64
34	DOWNSWOOD & OTHAM	U	Reculver Day Centre	2463	5763.42
				9470	22159.8
35	EAST	U	Penenden Heath Social Hall	1430	3346.2
36	EAST	U	St Lukes Church Hall	5709	13359.06
37	EAST	U	Methodist Community Centre	6643	15544.62
38	EAST	U	Vinters Community Centre	2247	5257.98
39	EAST	U	Howard De Walden Centre	5285	12366.9
				21314	49874.76
41	FANT	U	Fant Community Hall	3782	8849.88
42	FANT	U	Vestry Hall	1519	3554.46
				5301	12404.34
43	HARRIETSHAM & LENHAM	R	Lenham Community Centre	1253	2932.02
44	HARRIETSHAM & LENHAM	R	Harrietsham Village Hall	975	2281.5
				2228	5213.52

 

 

 

Prop ID	Ward	Type of Catchment Area (urban / rural)	Building Name	No. Buildings in Catchment	Population (catchment x 2.34av. pop)
45	HEADCORN	R	Headcorn Village Hall	1536	3594.24
46	HEADCORN	R	Grafty Green Village Hall	231	540.54
47	HEADCORN	R	East Sutton (Filmer) Village Hall	385	900.9
48	HEADCORN	R	Ulcombe Village Hall	298	697.32
				2450	5733
49	HEATH	U	Beechwood Community Hall	2741	6413.94
50	HEATH	U	St Andrews Church Hall	3833	8969.22
51	HEATH	U	Barming Village Hall	636	1488.24
				7210	16871.4
52	HIGH STREET	U	Quaker Meeting House	6277	14688.18
53	HIGH STREET	U	Jubilee Resource Hub	5941	13901.94
55	HIGH STREET	U	The Maidstone Baptist Church	6969	16307.46
56	HIGH STREET	U	St Phillips Church Hall	4532	10604.88
57	HIGH STREET	U	Maidstone Community Support Centre	6186	14475.24
58	HIGH STREET	U	Armstrong Hall	3592	8405.28
59	HIGH STREET	U	Dunk Memorial Hall	6440	15069.6
60	HIGH STREET	U	Trinity Foyer	6490	15186.6
61	HIGH STREET	U	Salvation Army Citadel	6723	15731.82
				53150	124371
62	LEEDS	R	Broomfield & Kingswood Village Hall	819	1916.46
63	LEEDS	R	Leeds and Broomfield Village Hall	420	982.8
				1239	2899.26
64	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Laddingford Church Hall	338	790.92
65	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Collier Street Village Hall	265	620.1
66	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Yalding Village Hall	962	2251.08
67	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Marden Memorial Hall	1513	3540.42
68	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Nettlestead Village Hall	553	1294.02
69	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Vestry Hall	4780	11185.2
70	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Marden Working Mens Club	1516	3547.44
71	MARDEN & YALDING	R	Yalding Youth Centre	868	2031.12
				10795	25260.3

 

 

 

Prop ID	Ward	Type of Catchment Area (urban / rural)	Building Name	No. Buildings in Catchment	Population (catchment x 2.34av. pop)
72	NORTH	U	St Faith's Church Hall	2843	6652.62
73	NORTH	U	St Pauls Church Hall	4492	10511.28
74	NORTH	U	Finch Court Day Centre	1854	4338.36
75	NORTH	U	Territorial Army Centre	4523	10583.82
				13712	32086.08
76	NORTH DOWNS	R	The Cardwell Pavilion	410	959.4
77	NORTH DOWNS	R	Frinsted Village Hall	134	313.56
78	NORTH DOWNS	R	Stockbury Village Hall	228	533.52
79	NORTH DOWNS	R	Wormshill Village Hall	142	332.28
80	NORTH DOWNS	R	Hollingbourne Village Hall	454	1062.36
				1368	3201.12
81	PARKWOOD	U	Christchurch Hall	3482	8147.88
82	PARKWOOD	U	Heather House (Parkwood)	2415	5651.1
				5897	13798.98
83	SHEPWAY NORTH	U	Grace Community Church	2680	6271.2
84	SHEPWAY NORTH	U	Hilary / Harmony Hall	2396	5606.64
85	SHEPWAY NORTH	U	Shepway Youth and Community centre	3178	7436.52
87	SHEPWAY SOUTH	U	St Martins Church Hall	3656	8555.04
88	SHEPWAY SOUTH	U	The Beacon Church	3579	8374.86
				15489	36244.26
89	SOUTH	U	YMCA Tovil Children's House	4362	10207.08
90	SOUTH	U	Loose Baptist Church	1967	4602.78
91	SOUTH	U	Maidstone Masonic Centre	4379	10246.86
92	SOUTH	U	YMCA Sports Centre Loose	1792	4193.28
				12500	29250
93	STAPLEHURST	R	Staplehurst Village Centre	2494	5835.96
94	STAPLEHURST	R	Cricket and Tennis Club	2089	4888.26
96	STAPLEHURST	R	Scout Centre	2492	5831.28
97	STAPLEHURST	R	Margaret Howard Hall (Chapel Lane Pre-School)	2473	5786.82
				9548	22342.32

 

Prop ID	Ward	Type of Catchment Area (urban / rural)	Building Name	No. Buildings in Catchment	Population (catchment x 2.34av. pop)
98	SUTTON VALENCE & LANGLEY	R	Langley Village Hall	991	2318.94
99	SUTTON VALENCE & LANGLEY	R	Sutton Valence Village Hall	956	2237.04
				1947	4555.98