Investment in buildings is normally a long term commitment. If HQAC are to balance their books they cannot allow individual Sqn Committes to commit them to expendature that is unsustainable.
On the other hand…
New builds are often more energy efficient, and defects should be covered by a builders guarantee…
I couldn’t agree more and if the building houses either another cadet force unit ( or a large sqn that parades 3/4 nights per week) all the better.
The physical structure is just part of the package that is the HQ. It also includes the ongoing costs of utilities, parenting, rates and who knows what else.
Unless the building is being provided and funded in its entirety in perpetuity there is going to be a commitment upon RFCA and MOD that a committee has no right to impose unilaterally.
All fair points … but my experience doesn’t throw ATC-HQ, RFCA or MOD in a shining light over effective expenditure control and budgetary responsibility!
Why would you consider that sqn committees (who are independent of the organisation and their own legal entity - which I would add that ATC-HQ are not, be committing ATC-HQ to anything. If a sustainable solution (which might include renting the building to other parties when not in use) were judged possible by civilians who wish to commit themselves in legal contracts, then that is not a matter of commitment beyond the trustees who will have put pen to paper.
Were the organisation more active in expansion plans, then the process would be more frequently to the fore in that the committee formation and practicalities of accommodation come as a first step and agreements between formation committee trustees and other parties are a pre-requisite for anything to happen.
It’s that old chestnut ‘cooperation and partnership’ again.
Not necessarily. Energy efficiency isn’t really a thing in cadet huts as you are only in it for a couple of hours at a time. We turn all the heating and lighting off when we leave. Different matter if you are living in it.
I assume you are referring to the NHBC. I worked a bloke who bought a brand new house and there was a lot of problems as the building company didn’t let the houses settle before people were moving in and when he and his neighbours tried to get these fixed they were told nothing doing. I’ve seen a few RFCA new builds pre-fabs like ours and brick built and the finish does seem to be a cosmetic effect.
As for committees having involvement in the decisions, the normal prejudices come to the top. A committee will outlast squadron commanders and staff and will have a greater local community buy in, than a CO who in all probability will live outside the area. @Rumpole says what many around the country know … RFCA / HQAC are not covered in glory when it comes to real estate and ATC buildings in particular.