Voluntary Groups and Community Centres

Jim Dickson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of under-investment over many years, he is making a really good case that community centres are places that bring people together and get them active and talking, resulting in improvements in mental and physical wellbeing. My constituency has some great facilities, including Greenhithe and Joydens Wood community centres and Bean village hall. However, the much-loved Swanscombe pavilion has closed and been left dormant, in dire need of investment, leaving a community without an important place to bring people together. Does my hon. Friend agree that local facilities are vital, and that we need long-term, patient investment to make them the community centres and centres of our local life that they can be?

[Ben Coleman]

I absolutely agree. I am sure that my hon. Friend has fought hard for the Swanscombe pavilion, and it is a great shame that it has closed. I am going to explore the reasons why these things happen in just a minute, but sometimes one thinks that local authorities could be a bit sharper in how they do things and understand the challenges facing us. Some of them are less competent than others—I have no idea whether that is the case in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, but I am sure he is fighting for his local centre.

In a sense, my hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my next point about the situation not just in his constituency, but right across England. The financial position of community centres across England is stark: net spending on community centres and public halls has fallen by 38% in real terms since 2009, which is a profound erosion of the infrastructure that sustains the life of our communities. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure. The Ethical Property Foundation recently ran a survey, talking to community centres and local areas across the country about what was going on, and it has identified five interconnected challenges facing community centres. I think it is worth sharing them, because in the challenges lies the solution.

The first is the insecurity that exists around leasing—the single greatest threat to the sector that the Ethical Property Foundation has identified. Over half of community organisations expect to face lease-related difficulties in the future, because too many are operating on short leases. They have break clauses, unpredictable rent increases, and full repair obligations passed on to them without adequate support. That combination is not simply difficult for them to deal with; it is highly destabilising. Without security of tenure, organisations cannot plan, fundraise effectively or invest in the buildings their communities depend on. We have to realise that many of these organisations are not trying to grow—they are simply trying to stay in the buildings that they already occupy.

That leads me to the second challenge identified, which is access to capital funding. Community centres report that securing capital investment is incredibly difficult—success rates can be as low as one in 20 applications, and the administrative burden is considerable. The most significant barrier is often the lease itself, because many funders require between 15 and 25 years of tenure security before they will invest, and if that does not exist, the organisation does not get the investment. Without that, organisations are effectively locked out of the funding they need to repair, upgrade, or simply make safe their buildings.

The third challenge is the condition of the buildings themselves. Many community centres operate out of ageing, poorly maintained premises. The research by the Ethical Property Foundation shows that 58% of organisations expect difficulties manging their buildings in the coming year. That is driven by rising maintenance costs and a lack of specialist expertise. I have seen at first hand in my constituency that trustees and volunteers are being asked to act as de facto property managers, but they often do not have the skills or support required. That is not sustainable or fair, and it carries a real risk to the communities that these buildings serve.

The fourth challenge is landlord practices and local authority procedures—too often, local authorities compound these difficulties. They include short-term tenancies, delayed decisions, regeneration schemes that leave organisations in limbo and, in some cases, sudden evictions or unaffordable cost increases. The ability to evict a community organisation with minimal notice is an extraordinary power, and it should be exercised carefully, and not without clear criteria, proper justification and meaningful protections for the communities affected.

In the Chelsea part of my constituency, we have a charity called St Mary Abbots Rehabilitation and Training, or SMART for short. Since 1985, it has operated a warm and welcoming centre, supporting people affected by mental illness on their recovery journey. It offers a range of activities and training opportunities, and a popular café. Last summer, the council locked the SMART centre out of its premises without warning and put a dirty great padlock on the gate. There was no alternative provision, nor did the council offer any proper support. It talked about safety grounds, but serious questions remain about the evidence, the timelines and the mitigation offered. Addressing all that was an uphill struggle for SMART, and it felt as though it was in danger of going under. Although a temporary solution was eventually found and reimbursement was agreed in principle, that came only after a prolonged and damaging process during which services were disrupted and vulnerable people were left without support. That should not have happened—it did not need to happen.

Of course, for every bad example, there are many examples across the country of excellent partnership working between community centres and local authorities. That said, the baseline must be raised. Risk should not be transferred to community organisations without the security that they need to manage it.

That brings me to the fifth and final challenge identified by the Ethical Property Foundation—