This is a quote from the Draft Chairman's Annual Report of the Charity, the full text of which will be public at the Charity AGM next week.

Regarding your query as to whether the Trustees would accept the Standard ACRE lease if it were offered.

In our negotiations with the Cambourne Parish Council group: Phil; Howard and John Vickery; Phil quite clearly stated that the Council was not prepared to have any discussion on any alternative lease. John Vickery said that there was nothing to choose between the ACRE lease and the one presented from Mills & Reeve.

So I suggest that the issue is not solely whether the Trustees would accept the ACRE lease, but rather the conditions CPC would seek to enforce on any lease. Maybe the following helps clarify. When the Trustees were originally nominated in January 2005 they were presented with a “Heads of Agreement” - a precursor to an actual lease. The Trustees had discussions with the Parish Council on this during the Spring and by June the Trustees were awaiting a final draft lease based on the negotiated agreement.

When the Trustees received the draft lease in August 2005, the document bore little relation to the “Heads of Agreement” There are four main issues of contention:

§ The Lease presented to the Trustees is a lease for business premises and it remains the Trustees considered opinion that it is not a suitable lease for a Community Centre.

§ Secondly, in spite of the Trustees complaint that the proffered lease was totally unacceptable, the leadership of Cambourne Parish Council insisted that they were not prepared to discuss any alternative approach even when the Trustees asked them to consider the alternative ACRE lease. (A lease specifically designed for leasing Community Centres.)

§ Thirdly. The lease offered to the Trustees indicates a tenure of five years and not the 30 years originally agreed. Such a short period effectively rules out application and receipts of external funds and external grants. Most organisations will only grant funds where the recipients have a minimum of 10 years tenure left on a lease at the time of application. Furthermore the Trustees were required under the terms of the lease to sign away their rights under law as Tenants for a follow on lease. ź

Fourthly, the lease in effect makes the Trustees financially liable for all and every indebtedness. Whilst this is common to Trusteeship, Cambourne Parish Council stated that they were not prepared to change the proffered lease to underwrite the Maintenance or Running costs of the Community Centre.

The leadership of Cambourne Parish Council (Phil; Howard: & John Vivkery) advised the Trustees that they were unable to negotiate on the above four issues following advice they had received from the Audit Office and their (CPC) legal advisors. However when queried, no written confirmation was available to substantiate their allegations and/or decisions.

The Trustees were verbally advised by CPC that recent legislation - 2003 onwards virtually prohibits Parish Councils from the previous flexibility they previously held. Since the leadership of Cambourne Parish Council felt they were unable to negotiate on the above four issues, it placed the Hub Charity Trustees into an unenviable position of having to refuse to sign because of the personal financial commitment upon them and their families in the event of any debt incurred.

So the Trustees informed Cambourne Parish Council on the 24 October 05 of their decision, based on the four issues above, recommending that Cambourne Parish Council take over the running of the Hub.