West Lothian villagers have been the first to reject council plans for the future of its community hall.
Answering to a 5 September deadline the villagers who run Torphichen’s community centre refused to sign up to any option.
They were quickly followed by those in suburban Murieston who also refused to agree to proposals for the management of its community centre, comparing the options to choice of the “firing range or the noose.”
A spokesman for the Torphichen villagers said: “the council have pushed us into a corner.”
Proposals for more than 30 community centres across the county come before the council early next month. The majority face being taken on and run by the council with increased costs for lets.
Management committees lose control of the centres under these plans and some, such as Bathgate have decided to dissolve.
In Torphichen- with only around 700 residents- the centre is the heart of community life.
In a letter the villagers state: “These community centres offer the last affordable community gathering and social spaces in our towns and villages.
“For Torphichen, it offers an after-school club, archery class, zumba, dance school and Pilates. It also provides space for our many social events and annual gala. With the proposed increase in rates, these groups will be lost to the village.
“Without these centres, there is a real risk to further erosion of our social hubs and spaces that contribute to the health and well-being of our communities.”
In its response to the council the village’s Community and Education Centre Management Committee said: “We see ourselves as a vital conduit between WLC and the user groups and people who rely on this resource for their health and well-being.
“To remove this link would seem short-sighted and foolhardy, only leading to the decline and ultimate closure of our community centres in West Lothian. We then lose a precious and irreplaceable resource which further erodes our access to community resources.”
Council takeover of the centre could see usage costs rise to £45 an hour, more than four times the current charge rate.
From leafy Murieston, in southern Livingston, the response has been equally robust.
The trustees of the Murieston Initiative SCIO which runs the community hall said: “None of the options work for Murieston village hall and we do not agree with the fall-back council operating model as proposed.”
The community was keen to try to take a two-year lease of the village hall to give time for Murieston Community Development Trust to investigate Community Asset Transfer options.
However, hurdles stood in the way including lack of road access for deliveries and disabled use; unexpectedly high energy costs; the age of the building and the expected £200,000 worth of re-mediation work needed within five years.
These risks mean trustees of the Murieston Initiative have: “decided that we are unable to present a ‘robust business plan’ that you require to allow us to take a lease of the hall.”
They added: “The trustees have worked hard to try to make our centre one to be proud of. The result has been an annually increasing surplus. We believe we could probably break even on annual operating costs.
“However, re-mediation costs for an ageing building beyond its design life expectancy and suffering from years of neglect would involve a risk of £25,000 per trustee – a risk we, as volunteers, are not prepared to take.
“All three options presented to us involve taking on all costs and all risks of running our centre. We therefore believe the only viable option is to return the hall to council control.
“Presenting these three options and calling it a ‘consultation’ is an affront. We compare it to asking a convict whether he prefers to die by guillotine, firing range or noose.”
The trustees added: “We are holding a public meeting on 22 September to update residents on the current situation and seek their views. We will give a final response after that meeting.”
West Lothian Council began a review more than a year ago in a bid to save £1m. Community centre management committees were encouraged to buy the buildings and manage them or take out leases with the council.
Another option is the return to council management- effectively a default- with user groups invited to take on a consultative role. In all options costs for hire would rise.
Many more centres have yet to decide which option to go for. The majority have already decided against buying buildings and the full lease and repair and it’s likely more will revert to council control.
Councillors will consider responses early next month. Changes are set to be implemented from the start of the new financial year in April 2026.
XXXXTHIS IS AN ADD QUOTE TO STORY FILED AT 13:59XXXX
A council spokes person pointed out that, at this stage, no one was expected to sign up to anything.
They added: “The council has been engaging with Community Centre Management Committees to discuss ways in which the community centres can continue to be managed by their management committees, and to also ensure that the income generated by the centres contributes towards the cost of running the centres, and that centres remain on a sound financial footing. It remains the council’s preference that community centres continue to remain community operated by local groups.
“We have been very pleased with the response from Management Committees and we thank them for their work to date. The vast majority of committees have taken the time to formally respond to us or have intimated by e-mail on their future intention. All the feedback is currently being collated and a recommendation will be included in the report which is to be presented to councillors in October.
“No community centre will close. If Management Committees or local groups indicate by November 2025 that it is their preference not to adopt a new operating model, and no other operating model has been proposed which will deliver the identified savings, then the council will, as a last option, consider bringing the management of community centres back under the council’s control to ensure they remain open for community use.”
By Stuart Sommerville, Local Democracy Reporter
