We are considering adapting our church for use by community groups during the week. How would you re­commend we set up the manage­ment?

A FEW years ago, a structure other than the one I am about to explain would have been my preference. The guidelines of the Charity Commission, however, have been much clarified: outside funders may now contribute to non-religious activities in churches, and the pressure of work on clergy is clearly too much for them to act as building managers as well as every­thing else.

For occasional extra uses, I suggest a simple system that would extend the work of a church administrator to taking bookings and fees, under the careful oversight of a PCC sub-group.

Many churches are planning to be full-scale community centres, busy all day every day. In this case, the manage­ment challenge is almost always beyond the scope and time of the PCC and incumbent. Professional skills are needed.

The church can set up a limited company, at very little cost, by going to the Companies House website. There can be one share owned corporately by the PCC, which means that at the annual general meeting, or at a special meeting, the PCC has the power to overrule or even replace the directors.

For some projects, it is valuable to have the diocese (usually the board of finance) hold a second share; this safe­guards both church and diocese from ill-advised or hasty action. The share­holders appoint the first directors of the company, who are then able to appoint extra directors as needed. I sug­gest that the PCC retains the right to nominate two directors.

This structure enables the church to draw in volunteer directors with appro­priate management skills for the task — people who have more time to deal with the management issues than a PCC would ever have.

The directors can meet monthly to review finances and financial pro­jections, and to review the running of the building and other essential issues. The directors would elect a chair­person from among their number. This allows the vicar to express the pastoral sensitivity necessary with user-groups in the church, and he or she does not need to become the “ogre” when a group fails to pay letting or leasing fees. (Most churches are too sympathetic to non-payers.)

The company can have — although it is not necessary — responsibility for maintenance and repair of the build­ing. Alternatively, this can continue with the PCC. Structure your finances accordingly. If you go with the com­pany’s doing the maintenance and repair, then the church should con­tribute a service charge for its share of the running costs, but the company should pay a rent to the PCC for the use of the building all week. The com­pany should accumulate a build­ing fund for repairs and renewal of facili­ties as part of its responsibilities.

Why not set up the management as a separate charity? Under charity law, the centre-management charity trus­tees cannot be accountable to the PCC for their decisions in an ongoing way; these would have to be spelled out in a lease at the beginning. This structure is less flexible, and the company struc­ture gives the PCC far more arm’s-length control of what evolves over time.

The company would recruit and manage the building manager and care­taking staff, all of whom may be part-time workers.