EGM – July 21st 2026 – Horley Bowling Club, Surrey

Horley Bowling Club

Extraordinary General Meeting

Tuesday 21 July 2026 – 6.00 pm
Site Improvement Project – Phase 1 Proposal

Purpose of this Paper

The purpose of this paper is to provide members with the background to the proposed Phase 1 Site Improvement Project and to seek members’ approval, in accordance with the Club Constitution, to proceed with the proposed expenditure and delivery of the first phase of works.

Under the Constitution, members must approve expenditure exceeding the agreed financial limit of £7500. In addition, the Committee wishes to ensure that members have the opportunity to consider how the Club should use the external funding that has been secured.

Background

Over the past two years building on members ideas for improvement the Committee has been developing a long-term improvement plan for Horley Bowling Club.

The aims of the project are to:

• improve accessibility for members and visitors;

• improve health and safety around the green;

• provide improved facilities for spectators and social activities;

• make better use of the available outdoor space;

• modernise storage arrangements; and

• create the foundations for future improvements to the clubhouse.

The overall project has always been planned as a series of stages rather than one large scheme.

Stage 1

Improve accessibility, safety, pathways, storage and the spectator/social area.

Stage 2

Reconfigure and improve the internal clubhouse spaceto provide folding doors to the green, a larger space for short mat, improved bar and catering facility and small lounge for socialising and after match refreshment .

Stage 3

Potential future extension of the clubhouse, to provide a youth room better entry to club hose and improved club access for wheelchairs and those with poor mobility issues. This stage will be subject to funding and Horley Town Council approvals.

Project Development and Approvals

The Site Improvement Project has been developed over the past two years following discussions with members and consideration by the Committee and the Site Improvement Working Group. The original concept was to improve accessibility, safety, storage and spectator facilities around the green while creating the circumstances for the club infrastructure to be reconfigured through a phased programme of improvements that could be delivered as external funding became available.

The first formal funding application was submitted to the Reigate & Banstead Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Fund in 2025. Although that application was ultimately unsuccessful, it enabled the Club to develop detailed plans, cost estimates and a phased delivery programme. The proposals were subsequently refinedto meet the criteria for other funding sources and presented to Horley Town Council’s Leisure Committee, which gave its support in principle. Following further discussion and amendments, the project was then presented to the full Horley Town Council, which approved the Stage 1 proposals and granted the necessary landlord consent for the Club to proceed with external funding applications.

These approvals enabled the Club to submit successful applications to Sport England and, more recently, the Surrey Community Foundation, securing a total of £21,500 of external investment for accessibility and site improvements. The proposals before members is therefore the culmination of an extensive period of planning, consultation and external approval rather than a new proposal.

Funding Success

Although less funding than originally requested from the Reigate and Banstead Community Levy fund the Club has been successful in securing other external funding.

Sport England has awarded the Club £15,000 to improve:

• accessibility;

• circulation around the green;

• pathways;

• spectator facilities; and

• community use of the Club.

In addition, the Club has recently secured a further £6,500 from the Surrey Community Foundation to purchase specialist accessibility equipment including:

• access steps;

• handrails;

• safety rails; and

• other equipment to improve access onto and around the green.

Together these grants represent an external investment of £21,500 into Horley Bowling Club, which allows us to relook and re–phase the project.

Why are we re–phasing the project?

When the original funding applications were preparedfor Phase 1, cost estimates were based on prices obtained more than a year ago.

Following confirmation of the Sport England grant, the Improvement Working Group developed a detailed tender specification and invited contractors to submit competitive quotations. The specification was deliberately prepared so that individual elements of the work could be priced separately, allowing the Club to deliver the project in phases if the available funding proved insufficient.

Four competitive tenders were received. As anticipated, the cost of delivering the full Phase 1 project exceeded the £15,000 Sport England grant, although two contractors prices would be within the money available if the scope was reduced..

The increase in costs reflects a number of factors:

• Construction costs have risen significantly over the past year.

• Labour costs have increased.

• Material prices have continued to rise.

• The final specification includes a number ofpreparatory works that were originally expected to be undertaken by club volunteers but, for practical reasons, are now better undertaken by the appointed contractor.

The Committee therefore reviewed the tenders and considered how the Club could still deliver the key objectives agreed with Sport England while remaining within the available funding. This has led to the development of the phased options set out in this paper.

Recommended Approach

Rather than abandon the project or return the grant, the Working Group recommends delivering the improvements in phases.

This approach allows the Club to:

• deliver the key Sport England outcomes;

• improve safety and accessibility immediately;

• demonstrate progress to funding bodies;

• spread costs over several years; and

• continue applying for further grants to complete later phases.

The Committee believes this is the most sensible and financially responsible approach.

The Options Considered

After reviewing the tenders, the Committeedeveloped three possible approaches.

Option A

Improved accessibility and creation of a player,spectator/social space

This proposal focuses on delivering the greatest immediate benefit in terms of safety, accessibility and circulation around the green. The works would:–

• improve safety by repairing and improving existing pathways;

• improve safety and congestion around the playground side of the site by creating a playerspectator and social area by removing the existing large brick flower bed replacing it by small–raised flower beds;

• enlarging this area by relocating one existing shelter to the Memorial Garden side;

• to stop congestion, hazards to players relocate the playing equipment shed;

• provide a flexible space with tables, chairs and sun–shades or pergolas.

Advantages

• Creates a larger player spectator and social area by rink 3 and 4.

• Provides significantly better circulation which lessensthe safety issues

• Improves the appearance of the Club.

• Delivers the objectives agreed with Sport England.

• Consistent with the proposals agreed with Horley Town Council

• Does not require planning permission.

• Allows for smaller manageable, environmentallyfriendly mobile raised beds

• Can be delivered within the available funding with limited additional Club contribution.

Disadvantages

• Removal of the existing large brick flower bed.

• Relocation of one shelter to another part of the siteseems to be controversial.

• Relocation of the playing equipment shed may mean players setting up rinks may have to walk further,

Option B

This proposal retains more of the existing layout while beginning the longer-term redevelopment programme.The works would:

• improve safety by repairing and improving existing pathways;

• replace and relocate the large brown maintenance equipment shed to an unused part of site making it easier to get equipment out.;

• provide new storage arrangements to facilitate future clubhouse redevelopment.

• create a smaller spectator area in the space released

• retain the large brick-built flower bed;

• keep the shelter in its exiting place;

Advantages

• Retains the large existing flower bed.

• Places the shed in an unused part of the site allowingthe space to repurposed into a sitting/ spectator playing area for rinks 1 and 2

• Provides a stronger foundation for Phase 2.

• Creates improved storage arrangements.

Disadvantages

• Provides a smaller spectator and social area.

• Requires full planning permission

• Delivers fewer immediate benefits for members.

• Keeps playing equipment shed in same place so the issue with taking back. equipment and disturbing games in play will continue.

• Future benefits depend upon securing funding for later phases.

• Depending on type of shed purchased requires additional contribution from Club Reserves.

Option C

Return the Sport England Grant and Use Club Reserves to Undertake Essential Repairs Only

This proposal would not proceed with the wider Phase 1 improvement project. Instead, the Club would return the Sport England grant and use its own reserves to carry out essential maintenance works to improve the safety of the existing pathways. The works would include:

• Repairing and making good the damaged pathways around the green.

• Replacing broken or uneven paving slabs where necessary.

• Addressing identified trip hazards.

• Retaining the existing layout, including the flower bed, shelters and sheds.

• Deferring all accessibility, spectator and social space improvements until a future date.

Advantages

• Retains the Club’s existing layout with minimal disruption.

• Allows the Club to address the highest priority maintenance issues.

• Requires no planning permission. .

• Enables repairs to be undertaken in manageable phases using Club reserves and volunteer labour where appropriate.

Disadvantages

• The Club would have to return the £15,000 Sport England grant.

• The opportunity to secure significant external investment would be lost.

• Accessibility improvements would not be delivered.

• No new player, spectator or social area would be created.

• Existing congestion and safety issues around the playground side of the green would remain.

• The Club reputation with funders and Horley Town Council would be tarnished

• The Club would need to fund future improvements entirely from its own resources or submit new funding applications with no guarantee of success.

• Future Phase 2 development would be delayed, as the enabling works would not be completed.

• The Club would lose the benefit of over a year’s work by volunteers in developing the project, securing approvals and attracting external funding, while risking the loss of momentum and goodwill that has been built with members, funders and partners

• The Club may not have another opportunity to secure external funding on this scale.

Committee Recommendation

After considering these options, the majority of theCommittee believe that Option B provides the greatest overall benefit but wish to find out what members prefer.

The rationale for recommending option B is it:

• delivers the commitments made to Sport England;

• provides the greatest improvement to accessibility;

• addresses several long-standing health and safety issues;

• creates a small space next to rinks 1 and 2 for spectators and player;

• improves the experience for members, visitors and spectators; and

• replaces existing shed and provides new storage

• provides a trial area to see whether it is used before doing the proposals in A.

Funding Later Phases

The Committee recognises that Phase 1 options being considered will not complete the overall improvement programme.

Future phases will continue to be funded through further bids to :

• Sport England;

• Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); we have received a request from Reigate and Banstead to rebid

• Through Surrey Community Access process – charitable trusts;

• Local authority grants;

• Sponsorship; and

• Where appropriate, Club reserves and voluntary member donations.

No commitment is being sought at this meeting for later phases.

What Members Are Being Asked to Approve

Members are asked to approve:

1. Acceptance of the revised Phase 1 project Option B

2. Authority for the Committee to proceed with the agreed works using the Sport England and Surrey Community Foundation grants.

3. Authority for the Committee to supplement the external funding, where necessary, from Club reserves (within the agreed budget) to enable the approved Phase 1 works to proceed.

4. Authority for the Committee to appoint contractors following the tender process and implement the project.

Looking Ahead

This project represents the largest external investment in Horley Bowling Club in the last 28 years.

It will:

• make the Club safer;

• improve accessibility for everyone;

• create better facilities for members and visitors;

• support future membership growth;

• provide a stronger platform for future funding bids; and

• help secure the long-term future of the Club.

The Committee therefore recommends that members support the proposed Phase 1 Option B improvements.

Annexes

• Annex A – Costings for Option A and B

• Annex B – Site Plans and Layout Drawings approved by Horley town Council are on show in club house

Annex A

	Option A:	Indicative price needs to be confirmed with preferred contractor
Item	Description of Work	Price Inc VAT (£)
1	Site set-up, protection of green and surrounding areas	960
2	Making good existing paving (cleaning, some lifting, re-bedding, re-levelling slabs. Replacement of damaged slabs. Dimensions 40 metres by 1.7 metres x 4.	4,600
3	Removal of flower bed including excavation and removal of contents	2,200
4	Ground preparation for new paving area. Purchasing and laying extended patio on the playground side –11 metres by 2 metres (22 square metre patio)	4400
6	Remove playing equipment shed base construct a newbase for playing equipment shed	1130
7	Dismantle and rebuild playing equipment storage in new location	450
8	Remove and relocate one shelter	750
9	Site clearance and waste removal including skip hire	800
10	Final cleaning and making good	650
	Total with vat	15,940

	Option B	Indicative price needs to be confirmed with preferred contractor
Item	Description of Work	Price Inc VAT (£)
1	Site set-up, protection of green and surrounding areas	960
2	Making good existing paving (cleaning, some lifting, re-bedding, re-levelling slabs. Replacement of damaged slabs. Dimensions 40 metres by 1.7 metres x 4.	4600
3	Removing large brown storage shed	450
4	Construction of base for replacement maintenance storage shed	2400
5	Supply of new maintenance storage sheds either custom made from existing materials £3,000 or ready -made contractor sourced shed for £1700 or resilient metal shed £6000	3000*
6	Erection and installation of new maintenance storage shed	1595
7	Ground preparation for new paving area. Purchasing and laying extended patio on the playground side – 6 metres by 2.metres (12 square metre patio)	2400
11	Site clearance and waste removal including skip hire	800
12	Final cleaning and making good	650
13	Planning permission application	500
	Total with Vat With metal shed	17,355 20,355

EGM – July 21st 2026

Quick Links

(Members Only)