We understand it is customary for a Business Plan to have specific sections for:
- Mission Statement
- Operational Statement
- Cash Flow
- Operating Budget
These are absent from the current Plan.
To address the specific Q & A text:
1. There is no mention of VAT in Table 2 (a breakdown would have been informative).
The question of VAT was raised at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in April 2008. It seems very strange that advice on this matter still has not taken. The fit out costs appear to depend on the restaurant being able to maintain a rental of £35,000 for 10 years. What is the fall back plan in the event there is a shortfall?
2. Is it not rather a dangerous assumption that “costs are as likely to reduce as increase”? Teddington School might be an object lesson here.
3. The Environment Trust hopes to raise £31.5K by “fund raising events”; this contrasts with £12K and £10K raised in 2007 and 2006, respectively (Annual Accounts). Can they really raise their game to that extent, given the adverse financial climate at present? We have no doubt that “funding bids will be welcomed”; it is the raison d'etre of funding bodies to “welcome” bids. However, there is no indication that such bids will be successful. This is purely a “wish”. Again, what is the fall back plan if not enough money is forthcoming to fund the development phase? Will the Council come to the rescue?
4. Five course packages have been identified; it would be helpful to have an estimate of the proportion of the total income stream that is expected from each. Three of the courses are due to start either in the Spring or Autumn of 2009, but none is listed on the RACC website nor in their Prospectus for 2009/10. To what extent are these courses river-orientated? How can they hope to recruit students, and thus be able to pay the River Centre, for courses that are not yet advertised? How firm is the pledge to teach 800 students per year by 2012 (p 32)?
Questions posed have not been answered: eg where is the RACC's Business Plan for these new courses? Will their contract bind them to paying 32%? Who will pick up the bill if there is a shortfall?
5. We understand the restaurant has recently been downgraded from 100 to 75 seats. A search on Yell.com shows that there are 92 restaurants listing for Twickenham. Competition is extremely fierce; how confident can anyone be that this restaurant will thrive in the face of so much competition? Has the Trust considered the difficulties involved in converting a school canteen in the daytime into a smart restaurant in the evening?
Is it really a good idea to believe implicitly in HMG Treasury's forecasts? They did not forecast the present financial downturn.
The summary Business Plan does not show the 17 revenue streams.
6. “The main entrance and exhibition area generates around 7% of income”. We need an estimate of the total number of visitors, and the nature of the exhibitions likely to be held. Will visitors from outside the Borough be charged more than residents?
“The River Centre will be a vibrant and well used building..” in the absence of any firm evidence, this statement is another example of pure wishful thinking, and really has no place in serious discussion of a Business Plan.
9. There should be a breakdown showing the legal fees. The core team has people with “considerable expertise in... legal issues...” (p 20), so why cannot they (or the Council's legal team) provide the legal work necessary?
11. The first para of this answer is very vague, and not an answer to the question.
We see the new playground is “likely” to be adjacent to the River Centre. This is a departure from plans shown the Development Brief, where this is definitely the case. On p 21 it is stated that the Development Brief includes an “improved” play area (we would be pleased for a reference to “improved”; p42 of DB states “replacement play area”), but no further details are given. A plan drawn to scale (unlike any plans produced so far by Environment Trust or Council) would be helpful here, to see how and where it would fit in. The lease on the present playground (expiring June 2009) could easily be extended; its destruction means there will be no playground for at least 2 years. On p 37 it is stated that “local opposition is more than counterbalanced by the considerable enthusiasm...” - where is the evidence for this? More than 5000 people have signed a petition to keep the present playground open, and we are sure the Green Posters have been noticed. How many signatures can the Environment Trust produce to demonstrate the “enthusiasm” quoted?
