I won't go on at length about the history of our Group (long time members are already bored stiff with hearing about it ) but we were chucked out of our site (two huts and 7 acres) nearly 4 years ago.
Since then we have always assumed that we would build ourselves a new hut - a knee-jerk response at the time, and one that we have never wavered on - until now.
We currently use the superb and modern Village Hall for Cubs and Beavers. The Scouts use a local Scout hut (which happens to be in another County, but still very close by) and also Phasels Wood.
The total cost of that lot per annum is £568.00.
Our outgoing Treasurer has quite rightly asked the question as to whether we should be committing ourselves to £100k-plus of expenditure, and all the pain, to build a new hut.
We would then need £2-£3k each year for utilities, insurance and maintenance, which might or might not be covered in part by rental income. That would mean either a lot of fund-raising or an increase in Subs.
That is a BIG reason not to go ahead.
The reasons that we still have to go ahead with the project are:
- "it helps to unite the Group" - mainly cited by the Scout Leaders, who feel a bit left out. The Cubs and Beavers both meet on the same night, so we see plenty of each other.
- it gives us somewhere to store all the Group's equipment other than my garage!
- we have the flexibility to run meetings when we want to, rather than when premises are available.
- we could run activities in the hut whenever we wanted to (assuming we have a need for that, and the village hall, other Scout Hut, Phasels Wood and all local huts are fully booked!)
- it gives us security of tenure, should all the other venues throw us out and no alternatives are available.
- errrm ...
Any thoughts on either side of the argument would be welcome.
P.S. If you are thinking of building a new hut, please do join the Group Scout Hut Builders