Where it began
PCC Brief 13/11/2014
From: Mike Oxford
CTK Building Needs Assessment 2014
Introduction
The projects team was asked by Rob Bewley to access CtK’s building needs and propose an approach that best meets our mission as a Church.
Approach
We took two main feeds into our assessment of need: Evangelism building assessment and we used the “Millstone or Springboard” assessment from Nigel Walter*. During the assessment phase we asked for input from the current PCC and ministry leaders.
Assessment areas:
· OPEN FOR BUSINESS – does the building look open, does it look like something interesting is going on?
· ACCESSIBLE – Does the building feel easy to come into “threshold of engagement”; secondly is it easy to get into for disabled etc.?
· WELCOMING – is the welcome area welcoming, does it have space for people to enter, does it have space for visitors?
· NAVIGABLE – is it obvious for visitors where to go, we don’t want people to feel stupid stumbling around? Things like signage and clear lines of sight are important.
· COMFORTABLE – can you engage in what is happening in the building or are you frozen, numb etc..? We are not looking for a living-room environment, just somewhere that meets the needs well.
· VISIBLE – simply, can you see what is going on?
· AUDIBLE – simply, can you hear what is going on?
· SERVICEABLE – do you have access to toilets, baby changing, storage etc.?
Main Findings
Firstly we have a lot to be thankful for, we have well designed building which scores highly in many areas: flexible, comfortable, audible, visible and of a good quality.
The lowest score was “Open for Business”, the Church is a long way from the road; people cannot see what is happening. The building sits separately from the community. One comment that struck me was that we should just move the building down to the road!
Accessible, welcoming and navigable all score low, also reflected in comments such as having a “building that is actually welcoming”. Our welcome is combination of building and people, but the insight here is that it can be difficult to enter a building if you cannot see or feel comfortable about what is inside. Whatever we do practically to our building and entrance way we need to reduce the threshold of entry.
Significant Comments
Stepping back from the comments and grouping them we got a more practical assessment.
|
Main Survey Outcomes
|
|
Second big space (bigger than Room6/smaller than worship area
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kitchen provision fit for ministry and welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Office space - for staff and volunteers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ancillaries fit for use, parking, toilets, child changing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Storage - general and specifically for food
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome area
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanded worship area
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although we have talked about a bigger auditorium, that comes well down the list. The main driver is for a second bigger space for events, youth, meals etc. that is more “robust” and can be used more heavily than the main Church, i.e. a room where a ball can be hit off something. The next items follow a very practical view of a bigger space and more use would require:
· The kitchen to be redesigned/enlarged to be fit for purpose and able to accommodate catering for larger events.
· We have scale and with that scale comes not just staff, but interns and ministry leaders, who all put significant time into what they do. At the moment we have very limited work space for our team leaders to work alongside each other. As a training Church, support and office interactions help build the team and also help communications.
· Ancillaries such as toilets and baby changing need to be balanced with the size and use of the building. Storage is a problem, particularly in the multi-use rooms around the building. Other items such as parking also need to match the usage and scale.
· The Welcome Area came up heavily on the main survey results, but also showed a lesser theme in the actual comments.
· The Worship Area came up on a level with the “Welcome Area” and was mentioned relatively little in the actual text of what was returned.
Other comments (so we don’t miss them):
Do nows:
· Wifi is weak in the building (dealt with in 2018)
· New Bibles required (dealt with in 2016)
· Doors are too heavy for access for disabled etc. – this is being tackled
Do nots:
-
Make the Church business like
-
Create a huge distraction
-
Block further construction in the future
-
Let the project take over the life of the Church
-
Building group must be accountable (this referenced the last building assessment)
Other important points that resonated:
· The building is for ministry
· People entering should feel appreciated
· Permanent space for prayer, possibly from outside when the church is not occupied
· Don’t be fragmented by trying to do so much – not referring to building
· Shorten the drive and related car parks; advertise usage
· Do it once and do it based on funds
· We will need a maintenance area
Next Steps?
-
Form a building team with PCC agreement
-
Take an initial review with external consultant to establish options
-
Define primary options and outline of costs to present to PCC Q1 2015
-
Launch programme based on a preferred PCC option
Steve Dodman, 13/02/2019