65 replies to this topic

[Summit Lover]

I hate walking past there these days Each time I do a bit of bile rises in my stomach.... a mixture of what might have been (sigh...) and a money making organisation masquerading as a church riding roughshod over the wishes and needs of a community

[charlie]

I can just see the inside of this place lot of computer consoles so the congregation can all send phishing emails !

Dazza

And first prize goes to Dazza. They are computer terminals.

[rubywoo]

I may be a bit out of touch, but am correct in thinking that all this "renovation" has been carried out without the relevant planning permission? I remember reading about applications being denied. How have they been allowed to to strip the inside of this building and convert it into the sterile monstrosity we can see through the doors? Jesus must be very proud of them.

[Norwood lad]

They had applications to do external stuff and advertisements which were denied.

All the work they have done inside apparently didn’t need planning permission although considering the place only has permission for a D2 leisure use I look forward to their explanation of how the work inside has now made it look like a carbon copy of their Church over in Walthanstow.

It does lift the soul to think a cash rich organisation masquerading as a religious institution can get away with sitting on the only D2 building in the area for getting on for 3 years whilst all the time exploiting its charity status to pay bugger all in business rates and spend upwards of £2 million tax free quid on a building designated for leisure activities whilst the Charity commission does nothing about it.

The depressing thing is had KICC not taken on the building it would more than likely be an open cinema now for use by everyone in the area giving a real boost to the local town centre.

God does move in mysterious ways.

[Ziwa]

+1 to rubywoo & norwood lad's expressions of desolation.
Wherefore hast thou forsaken us, oh planning process?

Moreover, why doesn't the issue of challenging charity standing get taken up with the Charity Commission?

[Ziwa]

And.....Free the Anerley One!
And now the other two who have been banned as well, just this morning. Free the Three!

[Palacegirl]

Ziwa - shhhhh..... you are not allowed to speak your mind on here... It's not what we do......


Keep it up - this is not what we signed up for surely....

[kibitzer]

The world has too many invertebrates.

[Ziwa]

The world has too many invertebrates.

kib'ster - couldn't agree with you more (but for reasons way beyond the current discussion ;-)

PalacGurl - love the avatar

[Palacegirl]

Ziwa - love yours too.... purrrfect....

[Dazza]

Blimey just come back from Paris only a handful of posts been listed since, crikey what are you all scared off?

Dazza

[Palacegirl]

not scared, just barred........

[jamesl]

why doesn't the issue of challenging charity standing get taken up with the Charity Commission?

There is no way the Charity Commission will act on a complaint which challenges KICC's right to exist as a charity. There are tens of thousands of religious charities with similar objects (i.e the advancment of X religion). Whatever one thinks about whether the advancement of religion is or is not a charitiable act deserving of charitable status or what KICC congregants believe , religious charities are here to stay.

Personally I don't see how focussing on their belief structure/challenging their right to exist as a charity advances the cause of getting them out of 25 CR. If anything it makes any future complaint weaker because it arms KICC with reams and reams of posts which they will produce in response to any complaint to argue , with some force, that they demonstrate that complaints are driven by anti religious prejudice, not by reason.

And for reasons I set out below it is actulally, in my view, an considerable advantage that they are a charity because this means they are regulated and have to act within a legal frameowrk of obligations and regulations.
This includes , for example, that Trustees of charities are bound to regularly review the investment decisions their charity makes, including for example whether the investment made yields a suitable return

Accordingly, in my view, complaint (and the time is not right to make one ) might be better focussed on:

1. How it is charity can justify a massive investment in a building it cannot use for the purpose it bought it for (a church plus community services) and then

2. How it is a charity can justify a further investment (refurbishment costs etc ) and holding onto to the building with the expressed intention (post change of use refusal) of using it within its existing D2 entertainment use

At present I would imagine that any complaint on these grounds will be met by KICC arguing that provided they use the building lawfully (i.e for a D2 Entertainment) and can justify that that use either fulfils its other charitable objects (community outreach etc) and/or can generate revenue for the charity (for example from entertainment events) then the investment remains reasonable and justifiable. Whether that argument would hold water in the event that the level of entertainment activity (and by extension the level of revenue from entertainment) is restricted by a failure to get a public entertainment licence or a restricted licence being granted which limits entertainment use to a level that the revenue cannot justify the level of capital investment is another matter..........

.hence why it may be better for those who have concerns to focus attention and energy on any future licencing application

Edited by jamesl, 14 March 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Canon]

Could theybe getting around the D2 license by having the ticket booths so therefore people are paying for entertainment?

[charlie]

Could theybe getting around the D2 license by having the ticket booths so therefore people are paying for entertainment?

I don't think they are ticket booths Canon. They are computer terminals, from what I could see, which would be in line with KICC's original proposals from 2009 to open up the building for "community" use - perhaps free internet access/cafe. A ticket office and bookshop were shown on the latest plans that accompanied KICC's recent application for external alterations (refused) - left and right hand sides of the entrance lobby when you look in. Whether they will actually be used for those purposes we will have to wait and see, but assume it is all part of the plan to show that KICC intends to use the building for "entertainment" which one would expect to be paid for.

The planning arguement is complicated and I think discussed elsewhere in length.

jamesl has raised some very valid points regarding the charity commission. In terms of planning, the process hasn't let us down yet but what will let us down and damage support from the planning authority and key stakeholders is the focus on KICC's belief structure. Though interesting -when it comes to licensing and planning use it is a distraction and irrelevant.

I would just pick up on Norwood Lad's point that if City Screen had been successful in purchasing the building we would have had a cinema up and running by now - so can totally appreciate the frustration people feel about KICC's actions but we have to be patient. "Patience is a virtue" - so they say. We'll see.

Edited by charlie, 14 March 2012 - 01:32 PM.