The first discussion question was designed to help us to see the Church property not as an end in itself, but rather as a means of enabling us to fulfil God's calling to serve Him here in Bangor. The thoughts that emerged from the discussion echoed the three themes on which our Church's development plan is based, namely, 'Open Church, Family Ministry and Social Outreach'.

The sense that our mission is to bring the Gospel of Christ to all ages was reflected in the recognition that our central location provides a good base from which to reach out into the local community. The potential to work in partnership with Queen's Parade Methodist Church and others was recognised. A key thought is, that in order to facilitate an expanding ministry, the premises must be 'fit for purpose' in the 21st century. In addition to complying with statutory regulations, the premises must be attractive, welcoming and accessible by all. One group identified a need to define more clearly the purposes for which the premises will be used.

The following three options (which had previously been discussed with the four working parties) were presented for discussion:

1. Carry out minimal renovation and remedial work to prevent further deterioration of existing premises.
   e.g.roofs, windows, walls, etc.,
2. a) Rebuild the Epworth Hall, Kitchen, Toilets, Office, Coffee Bar & Games Room,and
   b) Upgrade the Minor Chapel and Minor Hall. This could be done in two phases.
3. Rebuild the whole site (including the sanctuary, i.e. the Church itself).
   

The discussion gave rise to the following views and other options.

• Doing nothing is not an option.
• Amalgamate with Queen's Parade and sell off one of the premises.
• Carry out a full 'makeover'.
• Include living accommodation e.g. for a future Pastoral Assistant or other Church worker.
• Include facilities such as a gym, a café, a church office, conference facilities.
• Consider rental potential.
• If a major project is some years away, we should attend to the 'must do' items as an interim measure.
• An expanded programme needs to be supported with trained staff.
• As we move forward, unity of purpose is important.

Next Steps.

1. Form a fundraising committee and begin fundraising.
2. Explore possible partnerships with other churches and organisations.
3. Hold a Day of Prayer for our Church Council and Working Parties in early May 2008.
4. Arrange a further congregational meeting later in May 2008.
5. AND START PRAYING NOW PLEASE.

Introduction

The evening was planned as another step forward in the consultation process through which everyone in Wesley Centenary has the opportunity to inform and pray for the important decision we aim to take by the end of the year. The decision relates to the next moves we should make regarding the stewardship of our church premises in the context of our particular calling here in central Bangor as part of God’s world-wide church.

Our mission

The impact we can have in the town was highlighted right at the start of the meeting when Rev. Ken Todd read a letter he had received [the previous day] from a grandmother expressing her thanks to the prayerful people of Wesley Centenary. About a year ago she had felt drawn to visit our “Open Church” to pray for her grandson who had problems with alcohol. She referred to one of our volunteers who had suggested she write her prayer and place it on the prayer wall. The next day her grandson stopped drinking alcohol, and a year later began to read his bible. This lady had written to say she is thankful to God and appreciates our “Open Church” ministry and the prayers of our people.

Gillian, our Society Steward, reminded us of the important theme that ran through our previous congregational meeting (in November 2007) - that our premises must be ‘fit for purpose’ in the sense that they must facilitate and support those areas in which we believe God is calling us to serve him. In addition to our long established ministries in worship, pastoral visitation, healing, prayer, youth and children’s work, we have been seeking to expand into new ministries through ‘Open Church’, ‘Family Ministry’ and ‘Social Outreach’.

Bronwen, our Circuit Steward, told us how these three programmes have been developing over recent months: The ‘Open Church’ programme ran during the period leading up to Christmas and during the ‘40 days of Hope’ at Easter time and a team has now been recruited to open the minor chapel area to visitors on every weekday morning from September. In ‘Family Ministry’ numbers attending ‘Little Fishers’ have grown over the past few months to the point where Simone has had to close the programme to new members. However, she has plans to open on a second morning each week, and there are also plans for another Alpha course in the Autumn. In ‘Social Outreach’, links continue to be explored with other churches and organisations, Terry is our representative on the Harbour Ward Residents’ Association and our craft fellowship is now part of our ongoing programme.

Our premises

Gillian recalled how, at the time of the previous congregational meeting in November, which marked the start of the consultation period, we had been informed of the work that must be done to our premises to make repairs and meet statutory regulations. We had also been challenged to think about whether our premises are fit for purpose - not just for our established ministries, but also for the three key areas in which we believe we ought to be expanding our church’s mission – we could do more if we had more inviting facilities. The November meeting discussed three main options for developing our premises. A report was sent to all our members summarising the discussion and everyone was invited over the coming months to consider prayerfully which direction we believe God is prompting us to go and to offer their views to Church Council.

Recent developments

Following on from Gillian, Bronwen brought us up to date by explaining how the process has continued to move forward since the November meeting. We had been advised to keep the Rank Trust informed at an early stage of any premises project and they visited us on 24 January to be briefed on the options under consideration. A fund-raising ideas meeting on 19 February generated lots of ideas and enthusiasm. Some fund-raising has already begun and the two teams we entered for the Belfast Marathon raised £2,000 through generous sponsorship from our members. A fund-raising working party is being set-up with Brian Gough (our Church Council Secretary) as the Convenor. We are continuing to make links with other churches and organisations in Bangor and to explore the potential for including within any building project limited residential facilities and generating income through commercial rentals.

We also heard from Bronwen how, at the Day of Prayer held for everyone in Childhaven on 3 May for Wesley Centenary and its mission, there was a strong sense of confirmation of our three developing ministries and again the need for appropriate accommodation and premises was highlighted. Those attending Childhaven noted that the majority of our mission takes place in our halls and adjoining rooms rather than in the sanctuary. Our future is in how we use our property and how we invest in our property for mission. Trevor, our Property Steward then showed some examples through slides of how other churches have invested in their property for mission.

Mr John Clarke who is Chairman of the Methodist Property Board and has considerable experience in the construction industry having been involved in many large scale building projects in Northern Ireland spoke to us. John gave helpful advice on the process within Methodism that must be followed before building projects can proceed. Not least, any scheme must be approved by the Methodist Property Board and no project can begin until 50% of the funding has been raised. His over-riding advice to us as a congregation was to keep uppermost in our minds the concept of good stewardship.

Feedback from the Group discussion

Having had the context set in this way, the congregational meeting then moved into the discussion phase. Brian invited everyone to split into smaller groups and provided a series of questions designed to encourage us to contribute thoughts and ideas on the main options for developing our premises. He reminded us of the following main options:

Option 1     Minimal renovation and remedial work to prevent further deterioration of the premises.
Option 2     Rebuild the Epworth Hall, kitchen, toilets, office, coffee bar and games room with the possible addition of upgrading the Minor chapel and Minor Hall.
Option 3     Rebuild the whole site, including the sanctuary.

The groups were asked to discuss how the development of our premises could support an expanded mission and to consider the challenges and opportunities associated with each option. The outcome of the group discussions is summarised in the following table.

In response to the question ‘are there other options?’ the main substantive suggestion was that of an “intermediate option” - more comprehensive than Option 1, but narrower in scope than Option 2. E.g. it would go beyond the repairs and remedial work under Option 1, and whilst stopping short of knocking down the Epworth Hall, it would entail a substantive renovation of that area. Other ideas included: sharing premises with Queens Parade and renting premises to avoid incurring debt. When asked to identify a preferred option, overall, Option 2 was ranked slightly higher than the “intermediate option” although there was also some support within the groups for the other options.

Feedback from the open floor session

In summing up the group discussion, Norman, our Treasurer, noted the range of views that were expressed and said that the Church Council would look closely at all the points raised. He then introduced an open session during which the following points were made by individual members present: there was a call for greater clarity as to the scope of the various options including reassurance on the ‘must-do’ work under Option 1; we were reminded to balance our reaching out to the local community with reaching in to those on our membership who have little contact with church activities; the importance of good communication between Church Council and the congregation was emphasised as was the need to have good professional advice that the site is suitable for any expansion. There was a suggestion that we should devote our efforts in mission to the third world.

In bringing the meeting to a close, Rev Ken Todd thanked our guest for the evening, Mr John Clarke. Good stewardship is our obligation because we belong to God, and we dare not and will not make any move unless God directs us to do so.

Next steps

The Church Council is grateful to everyone who participated in all these strands of consultation, to date. The consultation period remains open and will include our next congregational meeting scheduled for 8 November and we will be pleased to receive further views. Bronwen Curry is our congregational link person for this purpose. Before then, it is planned to issue a document to the congregation addressing the main points raised in both the group discussion and the open session, as the format of the evening did not allow for them to be addressed there and then.

Our aim is to decide, in principle, by the end of this year which option should be pursued. In the meantime, the fundraising will gather pace (in preparation for whichever option is chosen), and we will do more to clarify and develop each of the options and their costings in light of the helpful comments received.
We embrace the changing conditions for mission and property. We appreciate your prayers that our church can be God-sent, God-supplied and God-strengthened.

Background

During 2007-2008 a process of consultation with the congregation of Wesley Centenary over the future development of our premises has been taking place. The process has included two Congregational Meetings, held in November 2007 and May 2008. Three main options were proposed for consideration, as follows:

1.   Demolish everything including the sanctuary and construct a totally new building from scratch.

2.   Retain the sanctuary but replace the other buildings on the site. This option, purely on a price per square foot basis, was estimated at £1.8 Million over a year ago, but the experience of other churches, who have done similar replacements, suggests this is a considerable over-estimate.

3.   Retain the sanctuary and renovate the remaining buildings to modernise them and bring them into line with current legislation. A fully independent survey was undertaken over the summer to identify what work was needed and ascertain what this option would cost. The survey indicates that we need to spend a minimum of £370,000, a figure which could rise if doing the work reveals problems not visible from the surface.

     The first option has merits but was favoured by a only a small number of the congregation. The other two options each enjoy considerable support. After the November meeting, Options 2 and 3 were regarded as the choices for the way forward.

     Obviously, if the decision was based solely on financial considerations, renovation was always going to be cheaper than replacement. However, there are issues other than cost.

How our present building evolved

     The design and layout of our present building is a reflection of the shape of the site and the fact that the building has evolved over a long period. The site is not level and indeed slopes all the way from Hamilton Road to the Bingham Lane car park. This means that if there was a single storey building running the full length of the site, starting at ground level on Hamilton Road, it would be at first floor level by the time it reached the car park.

     When the sanctuary was originally built in 1891, it followed the usual principles of Victorian design in being built about a metre above street level. This was to allow room for underfloor heating and ducting but also to create an elevated and imposing entrance approached by steps. This was normal for churches at the time but today creates problems for disability access.

     In 1912 an extension to the church was built. This presently houses the organ and Powerpoint screen, the Vestry and the Centenary Room but, as it was built on lower ground, the floor was lower than the main church, though this was also partly to create enough space under the organ for the original vestry. This led to the present drop of three steps from church level to vestry level.

     When the Epworth Hall was built in 1924, the same logic was followed in selecting the level. There was a further two step drop from vestry level to hall level, mainly because the hall was to have a side entrance and this was sited to be level with the sloping side path that runs alongside the right hand side of the church.

     The next major building phase was in 1963–64 when the kitchen, youth wing, rear office and classrooms were built. Although today the high steps from the car park to the new building are considered a problem, there was really little choice at the time but to have the kitchen on the same level as the Epworth Hall. If it had been lower or higher it would have required steps from the kitchen to the hall, which would have been impractical. Those designing the 1964 building were therefore constrained by decisions made in 1924. The downside of this restriction was that it left a large space below the kitchen and rear office that was difficult to use. There was insufficient height for proper rooms in that space and initially the space was intended to provide garages. That appears not to have happened and more recently one section was converted into the Charles Neill Room by creating steps down from the entrance area. However this room inevitably suffers from a low ceiling and is not DDA compliant. The 1964 extension also had an upper floor with the coffee bar and a long half-floor corridor designed to give a level entry to the Epworth Hall stage as well as the rear office.

     At the Hamilton Road end of our building the original manse was replaced in 1963-64 by the Minor Chapel with the upper floor converted into and extended to become the Minor Hall. Entry to the Minor Chapel was at street level and thus lower than the main church entrance. However, this provided a way of avoiding the high steps into the church and has proved useful for occasions like funerals. Probably many of our congregation have never been in the Minor Hall but it is used by the Anchor Boys as their activity hall. Although this is an upstairs room, like the Coffee Bar at the back of the premises, there is no direct connection between the two upstairs sections. This is because the Epworth Hall occupies the full width of the site and sits between the Minor Chapel/Hall and the Coffee Bar area. All this has serious implications for fire safety and effectively we have three dead end areas in the premises, each with only one way in or out and, in two cases, no fire escapes.

     The upshot of all this construction, spread over four phases and 75 years, is that we have inherited a suite of buildings which sit rather uncomfortably together, have a very convoluted layout and create great difficulties for many of our members due to access problems and stairs and steps everywhere. At a conservative estimate the buildings have eight distinct levels: Minor Chapel, Minor Hall, Church, Vestry, Centenary Room/ Epworth Hall/ kitchen, Epworth Hall stage/ church office, Coffee Bar, Charles Neill Room.

     Steps and different levels were less of a problem a century ago, or even fifty years ago. Today, life expectancy is much higher and a larger proportion of our congregation is elderly, with varying degrees of mobility or disability. In 2003-4, during the reordering of the front of the sanctuary, a degree of disability access from the Church to the Epworth Hall (via the Minor Chapel) was provided by replacing some steps in the long corridor with a sloping ramp. However, this work demonstrated the difficulties in trying to modify existing buildings.

     For those regularly involved in running activities in the halls, there are constant frustrations, one of the chief being that it is impossible to get from the entrance area in the car park to the Church, Centenary Room, Minor Hall, etc, without using the Epworth Hall as a route from front to back. This disrupts activities taking place in the Epworth Hall, such as Bowls, Guides and Boys Brigade. Although there is a side entrance, it is not always open and in any case will not give access to the Minor Hall, for example, without disrupting what is going on in the Centenary Room or alternatively having to negotiate a darkened church and Minor Chapel.

     Although the kitchen is well-placed to serve the Epworth Hall, it is limited to that function because of it being sited at the extreme rear of the premises and because of all the different levels in the buildings. Thus it is cannot be used to provide refreshments for pre-service Sunday morning coffee in the Minor Chapel and, because of the stairs, separate facilities have also had to be developed for the Minor Hall and the Coffee Bar.

     A new problem is now rearing its head due to the flat roof on the 1964 sections of the building. Apart from the problem of the roof itself being virtually life-expired (highlighted in the Report), its flat nature is encouraging young people to scale the walls to gain access to the roof and run around it. Even though they shouldn’t be there, we would be legally liable if one of them fell off and injured themselves.

Questions raised at the May 2008 meeting

     When we look at the arguments that were put forward at the Congregational Meeting on 15 May 2008, a lot of them centred on the premise that if you could demonstrate that the condition of a particular part of the building was not as serious as the leaders of the church were claiming, then you undermined the argument for replacing all or part of the halls. Several other issues were raised, which will be addressed later in this Report.

     The following points were put forward relating to the building:
     1. That the structure of the present buildings is ‘basically sound’.
     2. That the claims made about the state of the Epworth Hall roof were grossly exaggerated.
     3. That there was no basis for arguing that the present kitchen is too large or in the wrong place.
     4. That there is not enough money available to replace the present halls.
     5. That to carry out a major building project would involve the congregation in long-term debt, resulting in funding fatigue.

Structural questions

     As far as points 1-3, and similar points, are concerned, the comprehensive White Young Green Consulting Ltd independent report has a full appraisal of the condition of the building, highlighting its poor state and its non-compliance with legislation in such areas as Disability Access and Fire Safety. It can be consulted in the Church Office any morning, 10.00 am-1.00 pm, during ‘Open Church’, by members of the congregation, though it cannot be removed or photocopied.

     The Report confirms that the Epworth Hall roof does leak. Indeed, the rear entrance porch roof also leaks, as those who regularly use the halls during or after heavy rain will testify. The roof of the hall and church is made of Bangor Blue slates, but although these slates have an almost mythical reputation, like any other slates, they do not last forever. They weather, crack, shift, etc, and the fact is that the present roof requires constant attention and will never be a permanent seal against rain. The estimated cost of replacing the roof is put at £25,000 + VAT in the Report, but this is only for stripping back the slates and felt and making a ‘like for like’ replacement of both. If any structural defect is found in the roof supports, or if was decided to replace them, that cost would be additional.

     Our wiring, heating, fire safety standards, disability access and several other things do not meet current legislative standards and cannot do so without major structural alterations to the buildings. Fire safety is a major issue and it would be highly irresponsible (and indeed illegal) for the Church to ignore the recommendations in the Report. It is estimated that it will cost £50,000 +VAT to make the present building Fire Safety compliant, failing which we would have to make several sections of the building out of bounds for activities.

Financial questions

     Points 4 and 5 are a natural concern to all members of the congregation and it is our view that support for Option 3 was driven more by the hope that this would be a relatively cheap option, than by any love of the existing buildings. We want to emphasise that it is not the intention of the Church Council to get the church into debt. We have only £4,200 in the Halls Fund at present, but we make the following points:

     1. We have not yet commenced serious fund-raising and do not know how the Congregation will respond but we are confident that our people will rise to this challenge and give generously.
     2. At the start of any building scheme for church halls (of any denomination) it would be a rare situation for a congregation to already have the money before the decision to proceed is made.
     3. As we can see from the White Young Green Consulting Ltd report, Option 3 is by no means a cheap option, so either way we need to raise a lot of money.
     4. The Methodist Church has safeguards built into all schemes, designed to prevent debt. These are:
     (a) All schemes must be approved at Circuit, District and Connexional levels.
     (b) No work can commence until 50% of the money is raised (including grants and external funding).
     (c) Even when 50% is raised, permission to proceed will not be given unless a convincing business case is presented to show how the remaining 50% will be funded. These figures are always looked at very closely.

Other questions raised at the May 2008 meeting and our response

     1. Why not sell either Wesley Centenary or Queen’s Parade and combine?
          This has been looked at and it is felt that there is a distinctive ministry to be carried out on both sites.

     2. Why build halls at all? Could we not rent them as required?
          This would be a logistical nightmare, with parents constantly confused about pickup points as we moved from hall to hall. We would also sever the link between the church and the activities it organises. They would become simply secular events in the Leisure Centre or wherever they were held.

     3. Can any building work be phased?
          We would have to wait and see just what was proposed, as well as seeing plans, before this question can be answered.If achieveable, this would be an attractive possibility.

     4. Where would we worship during building/renovation work?
          As with Q3 this would have to be determined when plans are drawn up. Queens Parade is a possibility, should we for Health and Safety reasons be prohibited from using Wesley Centenary.

     5. Should we not be more concerned about outreach to our own Church Family as a priority?
          This is being addressed and more pastoral visitors have been recruited. We have also started a Craft and Fellowship Club. A Lay Witness Mission is planned for spring 2009.

     6. Can we have the Property Committee back?
          In the past this has proven to be unwieldy. The Methodist Church calls for ‘Working Parties’, rather than committees. The Property Steward is the convener of the Working Party and can call together volunteers as required to address specific issues relating to property.

     7. ‘Open Church’ – Why do we have to do it ourselves, can we not take turns with other Churches on a Rota basis?
          No! This would be a nightmare in regards organization. Besides, part of our ‘Outreach’ is to have the Church open and to show that Wesley Centenary is providing a facility to the people of Bangor.

     8. Communication between Congregation and Council is lacking; it needs to be both ways.
          The Church Council has developed many ways to communicate to the congregation – verbal and written (through Contact Magazine) reports following each Council meeting – ad hoc announcements from the front when necessary and of course personal contact with Council members. Two-way communication is desirable.

     9. A clear definition of ‘Church Vision’ and ‘Purpose’ is required in order to keep everyone ‘on board’. The ‘Church Vision’ has been spelt out many times – our outreach initiative – our need to embrace ‘Worship’ in the 21st Century – our desire to be ‘Community based’ and to serve a meaningful purpose, whilst at the same time proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

     10. Have we sufficient volunteers to sustain all the activities envisaged?
          At present ‘No’. However, experience has shown that where volunteers have been required they have been forthcoming. Open Church is a case in point. If everyone in our congregation ‘bought’ into what we are trying to achieve then it is believed that volunteers will come forward. For the more specialist ‘initiatives’ then expertise may have to be brought in.

New build versus renovation

     If we can now refer back to the analysis of how the premises evolved, we come back to the point that the present soundness, or otherwise, of the existing buildings is not the real issue. The church faces a major challenge here. If we cannot raise a considerable amount of money, we face the possibility of having to close down several parts of the Halls because we would not be allowed to continue using them. This would have serious implications for the youth and other organisations using them.

     We could spend the £370,000 needed to give the present buildings a major facelift and make the premises compliant with current legislation, but there would need to be considerable structural alteration to accommodate a minimum of three lifts and to provide fire escape routes from areas like the Minor Hall and Coffee Bar. However, after expending this large amount, we would still have all the awkward features within the building that we outlined earlier.

     We are nearly a decade into the 21st century and the decisions we take now will affect our church for at least the next 50 years. We need to think very carefully here and make sure that we do not waste money on what could prove to be only a short term solution that will need to be revisited again in ten years. We need not only to meet current legislation but to anticipate what future legislation may require. For instance, current legislation requires only disabled access to parts of the building but it is highly likely that in a few years disabled access to all parts will be mandatory. The advice we are being given by the professionals, including the Methodist Property Board, is that money sunk into what we presently have would be money wasted.

     A better alternative, in the view of the Church Officers, would be to replace the old set of buildings with a modern set of premises that has a pleasant ambience, a sensible layout and meets all current and anticipated legislation. Such a building would serve this and future generations for most of the 21st century – an investment for our children and grand- children, as well as ourselves.

What might a new building look like?

     Up to now we have said little about what might replace the L shape of the Halls. This is because there is no ‘master plan’ and what is described below is just one of many possibilities. We are not talking about an extravagant building, merely a roomy and functional one that would make things easier for all organisations within our church, as well as providing suitable and flexible accomodation for our mission to the wider community.

     Given the sloping nature of the site, the existing eight levels could be replaced with a two (three at the rear) storey building of integrated design, with easy access by lifts and wide staircases to each floor. On each floor corridors would run from the front to the back of the building.

     At the rear of the building, opposite the Bingham Lane car park, the entrance would probably be at ground floor level but to the right of the present entrance. At this level, there could be rooms suitable for the ‘Little Fishers’ (parents and toddlers) outreach, though these rooms would be multipurpose. Fire safety legislation requires such groups to be in areas that can be rapidly evacuated in the event of fire, ideally therefore at ground level. There could also be stores for equipment and chairs and a self-contained flat for either a Pastoral Assistant or an elderly member of the congregation. This ground floor could only extend a short distance back due to the rising ground behind.

     A lift shaft and stairs, adjacent to the entrance, would provide easy access to the first and second floors. First floor would be at the level of the present church, so that movement between the Church and the halls would be on the level. This floor would run right through to the Hamilton Road where it would become ground level. It would include the kitchen but perhaps with the kitchen sited so that it could service not just the Hall but the Church itself, if required, as well as rooms on the town side of the church. The main hall could be fitted with sliding partitions half way down, so that two organisations could use it simultaneously. If the main hall was orientated to run the opposite way to the present Epworth Hall, the rest of this floor could be accessed without using the hall as a corridor, a major benefit for for all the organisations, groups and gatherings who use it.

     The top floor would run only along the town side of the church as the new Epworth Hall would be two storeys tall. The top floor could provide accommodation for such things as Sunday school, women’s organisations, youth club, hiring out rooms for external organisations, etc.      Moving to the Hamilton Road end of the building, the problem of the steep steps into the church could be addressed by having the main entrance at street level, through the current Minor Chapel door. This would open to a large circulation area, where people could chat before and after church. The entrance area would have a corridor linking through to the rear entrance and hall, though the first part of this would have a gently rising slope to bring it to hall level.

     The existing steep and narrow gallery staircase is rather unsafe and its removal would allow the area between the new entranceand the old to be opened up so that on entering the building you would turn right and mount either steps or a wide ramp to reach the area where the announcements are given out and the church accessed. It could be replaced by a more modern staircase, to the right of the circulation area, that would lead to both the top floor and the gallery.

     The ground floor, facing the main entrance, would be ideal for the church offices, probably including a new vestry for the Minister. At present the church is open each morning and, with a new building, the opening hours could be expanded. This option would involve re-styling the Minor Chapel area and the Minor Hall as a welcome centre and a prayer centre. No Minor Hall would be needed as there would be ample accommodation for the Anchor Boys and Sunday School at the rear of the premises. Coffee could be served in the entrance area on a Sunday morning. Finally, alongside the upstairs office (or Prayer Room) would be a top floor corridor linking through on the level to the top floor at the rear.

     This is only an outline of what would be possible. It would be up to a qualified architect to turn such a concept into an attractive and practical design. Building totally new halls would provide much better value for money than trying to renovate an old set of buildings, as there would be a much more satisfactory end result, enabling us to fulfill our mission to both the congregation and the wider community.

Gillian McCoy (Society Steward)
Norman Johnston (Treasurer)
Brian Gough (Secretary)
Trevor Jones (Property Steward)
Bronwen Curry (Circuit Steward)

Return to news page