Corner House & Memorial Hall Annual Meeting

Sat 27 Sep, 16:00 (last edited on Sat 27 Sep, 16:13)

Ah John my dear chap, I feel your pain haha!  As no doubt do several others (inc Roy)…   Perhaps we should start a club – The Thankless Taskers?  (subtitle ‘what you really should be doing is…’).  It feels a bit Basil Fawlty sometimes –  ‘do you have any idea….??’ (Apologies to our shareholders there, your appreciation appreciated!)

So why do we do it?  Read Rob Stepney’s and Simon Fenn’s posts.  And think about how things could be.  ‘Nuff said.

 Except I’m now going to have to look more closely at the legal position.  Oh b****r!

 I’d stop there except I’d like people to know the Deli is not being ‘forced out’.  Just that with our lease running down, we have an offer that would get us out of a potentially large bill at the end of it but it comes with a deadline – and even we weren’t sure of it till a week ago.

Sat 27 Sep, 14:10 (last edited on Sat 27 Sep, 14:12)

I also promised to provide an email address for those who wish to offer further comments and suggestions.

I'm not keen to receive yet more reflections on the legal or planning niceties of what we're doing - we have regular professional advice from lawyers, planning advisors and architects for that. What we do always welcome is positive, practical suggestions and offers of help!

Rather than filling up our wonderful administrator's inbox and time, please feel free to email me directly on john@pjohnp.me.uk. Unwelcome emails will be ignored, and anyone who complains runs the danger of being invited to become a Trustee (ideally replacing me) to see if you can do any better; the rest will receive courteous, if occasionally non-committal, replies.

Sat 27 Sep, 13:52 (last edited on Sat 27 Sep, 14:41)

No need to surmise, Chloe - I can summarise.

The discussion stayed largely on the topic of the deli's move into the Corner House. Reassurances were given (not, I imagine, that they were particularly needed) that the trustees would proceed in accordance with planning regulations and our obligations under charity law; and on that basis an indicative vote was taken to test attenders' views on such a move - the outcome being one against, eleven abstentions, and the rest (about thirty-five) in favour.

We left largely unresolved some of the other areas on which the trustees would value the town's opinion, in particular the extent to which we enforce a ban on alcohol consumption or small-scale retail sales in the Corner House. At last year's late-night shopping for example mulled wine was served and local artisans sold home-made gifts etc - a happy event that we've been asked to repeat, but a good example of where our charitable obligations (to promote the well-being of local residents) conflict on the face of it with some historic constraints on the property.

Finally, we learnt that for pressing business reasons the deli intends to vacate its current premises in the next couple of months, and so it turns out (which was unknown to most of us till yesterday) that all of this might happen more quickly than originally expected.

Sat 27 Sep, 13:35

Chloe

I stayed for the duration of the meeting and I too wonder if anyone could surmise what was concluded? A difficult task indeed!

I was expecting a meeting where the Trustees would first provide a summary of the formal legal advice received on the subject matter of the evening's event; detailing what the Trustees are and are not permitted to do, and then move on to seek views of the those present - in the hope of establishing the most popular option open to the Trustees. 

I think it is safe to say that, at the very end of proceedings, a show of hands captured the overwhelming support for the relocation of the Deli into the Corner House but the route to getting to that point was quite tortuous. 

It would be good if the Secretary, who stepped in towards the end to bring about the required level of focus by all present, could continue his good work by producing his summary of the outcome of the event. This could be a very useful record - a point of reference should more discussion be called for.

Sat 27 Sep, 12:02

Rod, that sounds like an amazing set-up, and so brilliant for Charlbury.

Unfortunately I had to leave after an hour due to another meeting. I wonder if anyone could surmise what was concluded?

Many thanks! 

Sat 27 Sep, 12:00

Richard, I used oblique language because I was trying to be tactful.  To be more direct, I actually think that the TC would in practice be required to satisfy itself about the lawfulness of what’s proposed, by virtue of the wording of the relevant statutory provision: “The custodian trustee shall concur in and perform all acts necessary to enable the managing trustees to exercise their powers of management or any other power or discretion vested in them …, unless the matter in which he is requested to concur is a breach of trust …”.  In other words, if the TC is asked to execute any documentation it needs to be clear it’s not facilitating a breach of trust by doing so.

Sat 27 Sep, 11:36

A few years ago I tried to rent a room long term, just so that I could use it as storage for my excess stock from the shop, but I was turned down as I was deemed a business. I made it clear that it was for storage only but it was still refused. 

The corner house lost a lot of easy money from that.

Sat 27 Sep, 10:41

Difficult to achieve, but worth imagining: a Corner House in which there is a deli and cafe, museum, bookshop and reading room, art workshop and gallery, collection and distribution point for surplus food, a HIFA office, a room for meetings, music and wedding breakfasts (possibly accompanied by intoxicating liquor)..... with synergy between different elements, the whole more than the sum of its parts, and the community benefit indisputable.  

Sat 27 Sep, 09:44

Yes, I agree with Stephen’s posting save that “The TC might well feel that that proviso would give it…” – they might well feel lots of things, but that doesn’t mean they’re right! I think we would need to see precedent elsewhere for a custodian trustee making decisions like this before concluding that it is any responsibility of the Town Council.

Sat 27 Sep, 08:00

Stephen Slack’s last post concerning the interpretation of the continuing role of the Town Council as custodian trustee of the Corner House is correct and consistent with past practice. The Town Council has been a legal party to all the leases and legal agreements entered into by the Corner House Charity over the years, and as there has no transfer of ownership to the CIO, the TC will need to satisfy itself that the terms of the original endowment are being honoured in any agreement with the Deli.

Fri 26 Sep, 17:30

In response to Richard’s last point, my understanding is that, whilst the beneficial ownership of the assets belonging to the former unincorporated charity was transferred to the CIO, the legal title to its land was deliberately left (for reasons that seemed good to those involved at the time) with the Town Council. I believe that the TC was custodian trustee of the unincorporated charity and has never been formally discharged from that role by the Charity Commission, so that if it does still hold the title it will continue to hold it as custodian trustee, but presumably for the CIO (a very unusual and not entirely satisfactory state of affairs).

However, that wouldn’t give it any powers of management: where property is vested in a custodian trustee, decisions about its management rest solely with the ‘managing trustees’ (who, in this situation, would presumably be the trustees of the CIO) and the custodian trustee has to give effect to them in so far as it’s called on to do anything (eg in this case by being party to a lease or licence agreement), provided what it’s asked to do is lawful under the trusts concerned. The TC might well feel that that proviso would give it a legitimate ground for wanting to be satisfied that giving the Deli a licence of part of the premises would be legally consistent with the charitable purposes for which they’re held.

Thu 25 Sep, 16:45

Andrew – I think it’s fair to say there are differing views whether the Town Council (which is merely ‘custodian trustee’, basically keeper of the deeds rather than owner of the building) has any say in that!

Thu 25 Sep, 16:05 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 20:49)

Hi John - one of Trustees posted those exact words in this post https://www.charlbury.info/news/4884. See below. Was that a mistake? Or have the views of the Trustees changed?

Corner House & Memorial Hall APM with Open Consultation, hosted by the trustees

7pm Friday 26th September 2025

Memorial Hall, Browns Lane

Join us for our annual public meeting and have your say in the exciting future development of Charlbury’s Corner House and Memorial Hall. Share ideas on how these spaces might best be used for the benefit of the community and how they might become more comfortable and better enjoyed by everyone all year round.

We would like to canvas opinion on the potential move of the Charlbury Deli into the Corner House as the lease for the Deli expires at the end of 2026. How can we best make this work and is there a groundswell of community support for the move of the Deli to a community space?

Light refreshments will be available.

Thu 25 Sep, 15:36

Fun fact time again: the minutes of a Town Council meeting in July this year seem to say the alcohol question was discussed then and the council (owner of the building?) voted to uphold the no-booze rule. Though presumably this could still be revisited.

Thu 25 Sep, 15:32 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 16:40)

No, I didn't say any of that, Martin - I think you're quoting someone else.

And yes, of course allocating the space differently would be physically possible, but conversations about it with the parties affected have persuaded us that it's not a path worth pursuing at this stage.

This will all be best discussed at tomorrow's meeting - it's what it's for, as I said in my initial post. As I understand it, the main issues that we may or may not wish to tackle are whether we should seek to vary the original intentions that there should be no consumption of alcohol nor selling for profit on the premises. But while we're at it, we can discuss whatever elements of this that people want to raise.

Thu 25 Sep, 14:59

John (Partington), you seem to be saying that the notion of a Museum/Cafe collaboration of some sort would be "not realistically possible".  Could you clarify:

Do you mean the museum part of building can't be modified for practical/technical reasons?  

Or do you mean collaboration with the museum would be impossible for some reason?

Thu 25 Sep, 14:20 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 15:27)

John, I have to say that your comment is a bit disappointing: 'The Trustees are unanimous in wanting to welcome them as tenants for the foreseeable future, and at our annual meeting we intend to seek views on how best rather than whether to do so.'

Your previous post said "We would like to canvas opinion on the potential move of the Charlbury Deli into the Corner House [..]. How can we best make this work and is there a groundswell of community support for the move of the Deli to a community space?"

Are you saying that the trustees are no longer interested in learning whether there is any community support for this change? It will be pushed through, whether the community like it or not?

Thu 25 Sep, 14:16

Of course it would, Claire - but it quickly became clear that that wasn't actually possible. So we're doing the best we can .. which we believe will be at least good enough. As Rod says, all the deli can do is respond to our (best possible) offer.

Let's be positive. With good will and imagination there are some splendid possibilities in the offing.

Thu 25 Sep, 14:09

Very interesting points about the layout, if you are bringing in a cafe to make money to support the wider building it would make sense to put the cafe in the best and most visible / accessible place.  

Thu 25 Sep, 13:36

Yes, we have "given up talking" to the Museum about this. As a volunteer body, with limited time on our hands, it seems sensible to work with what is realistically possible, and exploring alternative use of our premises with the Museum is not in that category.

In the ideal world, and with more time and money than we readily have, it would be good to do a root-and-branch review of the use of our wonderful premises - which include the Corner House as such, the rooms currently used by the Museum, and the "cottage" - the last being a potentially excellent resource.

But that's a twenty-year project perhaps. Right now we need more income and better use of our readily-available premises (the two being linked) .. and the deli urgently needs a new venue. The Trustees are unanimous in wanting to welcome them as tenants for the foreseeable future, and at our annual meeting we intend to seek views on how best rather than whether to do so.

That's my understanding, as an individual Trustee, at least.

Thu 25 Sep, 13:21

Just in response to Stephen and Simon - personally I might agree with you and we have asked more than once but as directors of the Deli, we can only respond to the what is offered to us.  The shareholders will be discussing that later this evening.

Thu 25 Sep, 12:44 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 12:46)

To Stephen (Andrews's) last point, on where in the Corner House the Deli and Cafe might be located: have the trustees "given up" talking to the Museum about this?  Surely this is an opportunity to create so much mutual benefit by combining what the museum has to offer with what a cafe can provide. 

If suitable museum exhibits were available for people to enjoy while also enjoying the cafe, this would hugely increase the exposure of those exhibits and stimulate interest in seeing more.  The museum, or part of it anyway, would be seen by vastly more people and would be open seven days a week instead of for two hours on a Saturday and Sunday.

The ideal space for that would be the front of the building where, through the very attractive garden, it could invitingly attract people in from the street.  This would make maximum use of what is arguably the part of the building most likely to draw people in.   At present, that part of the building (as the museum) is closed most of the time.

The case for collaboration here is surely very strong.  Not only would a Charlbury Museum Cafe bring a wider range of visitors to the museum; it would also ensure that the cafe had a chance of competing with the other cafe offers around.  It seems to compete fairly well at the moment in its high street site but I fear that burying it in the Ann Downer room and at the back of the Corner House would put it at too much of a disadvantage.  

If it failed, not only the Deli but the Corner House, the Museum and the whole community would be the losers.

Thu 25 Sep, 10:50 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 10:51)

Notwithstanding my views on the matter, if the Trustees of the Corner House are serious about wanting to see a functioning cafe in the building that would become a community hub, then having given up asking the Museum to move, Cornerstones need to be relocated to the Cottage in the rear garden. The front room and the Anne Downer room could room then be properly utilised. The space currently being offered to the Deli is far too small to work, as it can only accommodate a couple of small tables. 

Thu 25 Sep, 09:32

There is a lot of information on this thread and conflicting views

I think Tim has summed it up well

Find out what the town wants and then ask the Charities Commission if this is acceptable

Thu 25 Sep, 08:17 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 08:23)

I think we are getting to the nub of the issue, what do the people of Charlbury want for the Corner House, what is the common ground or, dare I say it, the confluence of interest. This is the point of the meeting, to canvas opinion, to help form the direction of travel for the Corner House, how should those spaces, so generously left 80-odd years ago by the benefactor, best be used for the community and in a way which covers the cost of running and maintaining the buildings and the site. 

The ground floor is significantly under-used, as is the beautiful garden. Hopefully the significant improvements that have been made to the windows will have a meaningful and positive impact on the comfort of the rooms. And if the Deli, or some such community cafe is what the people want then why not explore that opportunity?

We look forward to meeting as many of you that can make the meeting tomorrow and hear your views on what we could do to help take this wonderful community asset forward.

Thu 25 Sep, 07:54 (last edited on Thu 25 Sep, 08:52)

Rod, As a former solicitor, I am sure that you realise that you cannot 'whisper away' the conditions of an legal endowment. As as has been said on this thread, one hopes that the Trustees (and the Town Council) have taken robust legal advice to contest any challenge if the use of the building is be used outside the charity objectives. The endowment however recognises that if 'the land is no longer required for use for the object of the charity,' a Town meeting should be called to vote on its sale with 'the funds being held in a trust to use the income from the invested proceeds of sale in furtherance of the object of the charity.' 

Wed 24 Sep, 22:06 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 22:09)

A few quickies (well, I'll try!)

I don't think this is the right meeting to discuss legal technicalities - though as a former solicitor I'd be happy to participate in one if invited.  Isn't it more about what people want to happen than how to make it so?  And whisper it - some might not see the donor's wishes as so important to the community after 80 years....

My legal antennae may be a bit rusty but was aware of the conflict of interest point.  They don't know this yet but as Chair, I will not allow voting on this issue at the shareholders' meeting tomorrow by anyone who is or has been a trustee of the CH.  OK Claire??

Private profit.   For the shareholders to decide whether to waive it.  And whether later to convert to a Community Business as Andrew suggests.  I'll be saying more about that at the shareholder meeting tomorrow but we need to move first (and possibly fast!).  And yes, George, public consultation / participation essential to that process, indeed partly the reason for it.

Oh and the Deli is not being offered a lease, only an 'occupancy agreement' (ie a licence in legal terms).  Again, for the shareholders to decide if that's acceptable.

Wed 24 Sep, 20:38

It is a textbook example of a conflict of interest. I cant think of a more obvious conflict than a charity entering a contract with a company in which its trustees are shareholders. (Not directors!) 

Wed 24 Sep, 20:05 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 20:06)

Claire, none of the trustees of the Corner House are directors of the Deli; two are shareholders.

Your point about refurbishment/fitting out is very important, though!

Wed 24 Sep, 20:00 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 20:06)

Richard, that's one for the deli shareholders rather than for us. I can't speak for them (presumably they'll speak for themselves at the shareholders' meeting tomorrow) .. but from our perspective if they're willing to convert to some official form of non-profitmaking enterprise, then that's the easiest way of our keeping within charity law and Mr Morris' wishes.

Claire, there are no undeclared conflicts of interest, and no trustees are directors of the deli. (And not all congruences of interest are conflicts - in much of this the deli's and our interests coincide rather than conflict.) We declare and record all potential conflicts of interests at our trustees' meetings, and recuse ourselves or each other as necessary from relevant discussions & decisions. But your main point is spot-on .. the deli's running a café for us (and paying us for doing so!) would greatly further our charitable aims by helping us pay for the urgent and costly refurbishment that we're currently undertaking.

Wed 24 Sep, 19:29

What I’m wondering about is the refurbishment needed before the Deli can move in. Assuming it’s needed, who will pay for that? I think it’s a good idea to rent out rooms commercially if that’s what’s needed to make the building viable, I don’t think Charles Morris could have foreseen the costs of modern fire safety requirements etc. But there is a clear conflict of interest where trustees are also directors of the deli. 

Wed 24 Sep, 18:51

Stephen’s excellent posting mentions “Assuming that what the CIO trustees have in mind is that the Deli should pay less than a fully commercial rental or licence fee”.

The (fully commercial) monthly rental paid by the Deli since moving into the Old Bank House is not that high, once the subletting from the flat above is taken into account. Others will know more than me about other commercial units in Charlbury but the figures I’ve heard are not high either.

I am a little anxious about the notion that the Deli is not allowed to pay any dividends at all. I could see the logic in saying that the Corner House is entitled to the first £n (where n could be really quite a large number!), and only anything above that is available for dividends, but to rule them out entirely seems hard to square with directors’ Section 172 duties. In practice it’s unlikely to arise – I used to jokingly describe the Deli as a “non-profit organisation” because, well, it didn’t make a profit – but while the Deli remains a limited company with shareholders I’d suggest being careful around the wording here.

Wed 24 Sep, 18:43 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 18:44)

I'll investigate: that's handled by our architect, in concert with a couple of my fellow trustees.

For clarity, the meeting is an information-sharing and informal consultation/discussion meeting, not an AGM - which our constitution doesn't include. We're planning a presentation on the past year's finances and then about our current refurbishment progress and development plans, leading into open discussion. We're not inviting contributions, or seeking advice, about technicalities & legalities - which are covered by our more formal processes, of which this is not a part.

However, I'm sure that those of the trustees who cover those more technical aspects (one of us is a retired planning officer for example), and our architect if he is present, will be happy to answer any questions that they can.

For my part I shall remind my fellow trustees to bring whatever paperwork that they can to help them answer questions intelligently - not, I imagine, that they'll need such a reminder.

Wed 24 Sep, 18:06

Re: this Friday's APM: At this meeting can the listed building consent agreement from WODC be provided. 

Wed 24 Sep, 16:48

Thanks, Andrew. 

Wed 24 Sep, 15:40

Having commercial catering companies provide a café in a community and charity building is entirely normal and happens all over. Locally, for example, the café and the restaurant in the Ashmoleum is provided by a commercial firm. What we are proposing is that the Deli provide the café for us but we go further by saying they are not allowed to pay their shareholders any profit that might arise from providing this service. At the same time, they have to pay us a commercial rent for the space they occupy. The Deli shop is merely ancillary to the provision of the café and is service to be provided under the same terms for the benefit of the community. And of course, as well as being a community asset, this is a fund-raising exercise to help pay for maintaining the building.

Wed 24 Sep, 15:30

Just to address George's point, and purely for factual information (which anyone can find through Companies House/The Charities Commission), two of the Corner House's current six trustees were listed as shareholders of the Deli in 2023.

Wed 24 Sep, 14:40 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 15:00)

Thank you for your excellent analysis, Stephen (S). Useful to have that now shared publicly - you & I have of course discussed it privately a while back and I've shared your insights with the other trustees. We're sure that you're right - that assurance from the Charity Commissioners is sufficient grounds for confidence, without further legal steps.

So Martin G is right too, that we're not expecting the Annual Meeting to provide guidance on what we legally may do, but only on what we ideally should do. The decision is ours, as Trustees, but we manage the building on behalf of the town and are helped by knowing the range of local opinion.

I'm not sure, in reply to George O, that there is much discussion to be had about some of the CHMH trustees also being deli shareholders .. that's a matter of public, minuted, record and there is no conflict of financial interests (except that the dell's putative move into the Corner House would change their non-receipt of dividends from a likelihood to a certainty!).

Wed 24 Sep, 14:20

I assume the fact that at least one of CH Trustees being a Deli shareholder will be discussed. Also, should the Deli wish to become a CBS, I would expect a broad community consultation to ascertain whether or not there is an appetite locally for people to become shareholders in the new legal model. 

Wed 24 Sep, 14:02 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 14:04)

Thank you for explaining the legal issues, Stephen (Slack). But it seems that the meeting on Friday is to be focused on the moral aspects of the situation, rather than the legal aspects: "This year's Annual Meeting is particularly important because the Trustees want to hear your opinion about how best to honour the original donor's wishes, almost a century ago, about the use of the building."  

The wording of the 1946 deed must surely be relevant to this question. 

Wed 24 Sep, 14:00 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 18:24)

In response to Stephen Slacks' post, according to the Charity Commission register, the Corner House and Memorial Hall CIO does not own any land or building. I assume that the title still sits with the Town Council as custodian Trustee. The original endowment conditions therefore continue to apply.

Wed 24 Sep, 12:32

Purely for context in this discussion, the Deli has long been caught 'somewhere in the middle' in terms of its status. It is proud to be considered a community organisation, though technically it is a standard limited company, with shareholders who happen to be (mainly) local (or at least originally). It is also no secret, being a matter of public record, that the Deli is not lately making a profit anyway, and the shareholders have never received a dividend, nor pressed for one, even when the business has been profitable.

There has also been regular discussion of the Deli becoming a Community Benefit Society anyway, especially with the Corner House in mind, so it's certainly not the case that some profiteering entity is getting its talons into the Corner House. Clearly CBS status would help this move, but the bureaucratic wheels for such a change would not turn instantly. Whether the Deli can find a distinct role in the context of other offerings, such as the Missing Bean or whatever the Bull might decide to do, is a different question.

Certainly it would be great to see different community-based organisations working constructively together!

As a side question, speaking of community spaces: does anyone know what the fate of the now-closed Methodist chapel is to be?

Wed 24 Sep, 12:22

Apologies for a long and complex post. But I think debate the trustees needs to take place on the basis of an informed understanding of the (complex) legal position and I won’t be able to attend the meeting on Friday to explain my own understanding of it.   If the trustees…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 24 Sep, 12:02

There are many laudable initiatives within the Corner House: HIFA, The Art Room, The Cornerstone and the bookshop. HIFA is a registered charity and the others run by volunteers for the benefit of the community. Introducing a retail business is a significant change of use, however attractive it is financially as a way to increase income for the CH. I would like to see more initiatives like the existing ones which are free from any obligation to deliver shareholder value or turn a profit. Examples would be a reading room, an open-access workspace, social and cultural events in the evenings.

Wed 24 Sep, 11:33

Coffee mornings in the Anne Downer room were for years very popular occasions but in more recent times we hear of nobody wanting to use the room for that purpose. The old kitchen has been idle for a long time now. Coffee mornings nowadays can be much better accommodated in the Garden Room in the Memorial Hall, but it seems the whole culture of coffee mornings in aid of local groups seems to have died away in Charlbury.

Our proposal now in effect partly renews these events: coffee mornings on a daily basis! Although technically a commercial company will be providing the catering, that company is really a local community business and our proposal ensures any profits from the café are put towards good works. The trustees feel comfortable that we are working within the purposes of the charitable trust now responsible for taking care of the building, and in line with what the original donor of the building had in mind.

Wed 24 Sep, 10:16 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 10:20)

I write as former Chairman of the Corner House. Local groups and societies regularly hired the Anne Downer Room and kitchen for fundraising purposes - serving Saturday morning coffee and cake. What is different about the Deli proposal is that is a business, not a club or society, and will wish to secure a long term lease, rather hire the rooms on a daily basis. Under my tenure, an application of this type would have been rejected as it would have been deemed to be outside the objects of the charity and would have prevented the hire of the rooms by others. 

Wed 24 Sep, 09:48

And in answer to Susie and her uptickers, the Trustees would be helped by knowing more clearly why the introduction of a café, run by the deli or anyone else, would be seen as inappropriate! (And, as I've said below, what it is that people would rather that we do instead.) We want to use the Corner House in the way that Charlburians want.

Wed 24 Sep, 09:25

As per my earlier post, can't help but agree with Martin - if you want to know "how best to honour the original donor's wishes"  it's kind of important to know exactly what those wishes were!

Happy to correct another misconception (cf Claire's post).  The Deli is a private ltd company owned by over 100 local shareholders - and has been going since 1991.  Far from the CH subsidising it, as I said, part of the purpose of moving into the CH is to provide it with some rental income.

It’s for the shareholders to decide on the Deli's future – though its customers will point the way!  Amarello is a restaurant/bistro and has no retail side – so we laregely complement each other.  Missing Bean hasn't even opened yet and who knows if it will survive any longer than the 2 previous businesses;  and the café in the cc has co-existed for some years now so we presumably serve different audiences.  And where does fairness come into it anyway??  Business is business - as I'm rapidly discovering!

Wed 24 Sep, 09:23

In answer to Claire, there is no intention to subsidise the deli (ie to charge them less than we would anyone else for the space). The precise terms are still under discussion (and the latest recension of them is being presented to the deli's shareholders tomorrow), but my understanding is that (net of current sub-letting arrangements) they will be paying us no less than they are currently being charged for their premises.

As for whether such a café is 'needed', I can't see that there will be any material change from the current state of affairs - where the deli and its café seems popular and well-patronised. In the longer term, who can tell - but perhaps local people will be increasingly glad of a safe space in which to avoid posh Londoners: a temperance version of the Rose & Crown.

Wed 24 Sep, 09:22

Hi Roy, John mentioned you were having technical problems posting the paperwork. Please let me know if you need any help. I can scan the documents if you need me to. 

Wed 24 Sep, 08:10

I am the chairman of the trustees whose job it is to continue to honour the very generous gift of the Corner House by Mr Charles Morris, the purposes of which are set out in the conveyance document that was accepted by more than twenty significant representatives of our community. The essence of the gift is to promote the wellbeing of our community. Mr Morris was careful to spell out that the building was to be for the Common Good and not for the financial enrichment of a limited number of individuals. In the conveyance, he does imply that a café might be provided and also a reading room.

Our hope now is that there will be a café with the deli providing its food and non-alcoholic beverages in compliance with Mr Morris’s wishes. Part of the sales of the café and deli will be paid to the Corner House as an occupancy fee for their spaces, and those payments will help towards the costs of maintaining the Corner House for the Common Good. If the deli shareholders decide to accept our offer, they will forgo any dividend or profit from their shares.

The bookshop that currently occupies the Anne Downer room will move upstairs to join other books in the Morris Room, which can then in part be regarded as the reading room envisaged long ago by Mr Morris.

Wed 24 Sep, 07:40

Yes, there is documentation of the donor's wishes - exactly how legally binding I'm not qualified to say. (Other trustees are more knowledgeable about that, and legal advice has been equivocal on the subject.) Whatever the precise legal constraints may be, as trustees we are keen to keep to the spirit of the bequest .. but are unsure about exactly what that might look like in the light of social changes over the decades.

Roy, I know, has tried to answer your question more precisely - he has the relevant paperwork - but is having technical problems posting. Perhaps his response will appear here today.

Tue 23 Sep, 21:12 (last edited on Wed 24 Sep, 09:57)

Hi John

Thank you for organising the meeting. You mentioned "the Trustees want to hear your opinion about how best to honour the original donor's wishes, almost a century ago, about the use of the building."  Would you be able to provide some more information about the donors' wishes? Was anything set out in writing? Is there a legal contract or other governing document? I tried looking on your website but I couldn't find anything there.

People coming to the meeting will likely be able to contribute more meaningfully if they are able to read something beforehand. Sorry if you've already provided this - I may have missed an earlier post. 

Tue 23 Sep, 20:25

As far as I can see the purpose of the trust was wider than simply educational purposes. And one of the challenges for all charitable trusts is keeping up with a constantly changing environment. The purposes of the trust in its new CIO form certainly seems more flexible and able to adapt. 

The Corner House has a long tradition as a community asset. But keeping it going and keeping it up to date will be a constant challenge. I am sure that the trustees would welcome all ideas, particularly creative ones thinking outside the box. 

Good luck with the meeting on Friday. 

Tue 23 Sep, 20:11

What I would like to  understand is whether the Corner House is proposing to effectively subsidise the Deli. If so, is this fair on other nearby businesses like Amarelo and Missing Bean, and is it needed when we already have a community cafe at the community centre.  

Tue 23 Sep, 19:39

Thank you Rod and Susie. I'm sure that Roy will bring the relevant paperwork to the meeting.

Of course, one of the earliest uses of the Corner House after it was given to the town was as a British Restaurant, and one of its most-missed more-recent uses was for coffee mornings .. so there's no reason in principle why a café (with or without off-sales of food & drink) wouldn't be a suitable use of the premises. It's the fine detail (eg alcohol and profit) that is less clear-cut.

And if some of the downstairs is used again as a café, then the Morris Room would probably become a more thorough-going bookshop & reading room - which was an explicit hope of the original donor.

So we're confident as trustees that these sorts of developments are appropriate. It's the details of their implementation that we're keen to get right, and will be discussing at the meeting.

And it's always easier for people to oppose rather than propose ideas. So it would be interesting to know what those who don't want to see a café etc on the premises suggest that we do with the old kitchen etc instead. It will need to be something that pays its way in our expensive building.

This is a useful discussion, and we look forward to it continuing on, and before, Friday.

Tue 23 Sep, 18:53 (last edited on Tue 23 Sep, 19:01)

I’m writing as the Chair of the Deli & Café.  We have a shareholder meeting on Thursday – entirely by coincidence – when shareholders will be discussing options for the future of the business.  One of those will be an offer from the CH trustees for us to occupy the…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 23 Sep, 11:20

Unfortunately I will be unable to attend however I would like to stress that the Corner House was left for educational use for the people of Charlbury and not for the use of the Deli or any other establishment.  I have no problem with Cornerstone being there however I do think that to let the Deli in (although I can understand their predicament) goes against the intended use of the original trust.

Tue 23 Sep, 07:51

Come and join us at 7.00 pm this Friday to learn about the current refurbishment programme in your Corner House, for which you recently raised several thousand pounds at our wonderful annual Street Fair.

This year's Annual Meeting is particularly important because the Trustees want to hear your opinion about how best to honour the original donor's wishes, almost a century ago, about the use of the building.

Those wishes were reflected in some detailed stipulations, not always strictly observed since, about (amongst other things) the consumption of alcohol and the sale of goods "for personal profit".

The Trustees, of course, fully intend that the Corner House continue to be run as a charitable enterprise for the benefit of all Charlburians - but we shall be glad to hear, and be guided by, your opinions about the detailed implications of that.