Author’s note: When I wrote this paper in 2012, it was written in the hope that some order could be brought to bear on what would have been in any case a difficult and chaotic feeling time. I did show it to several folk in leadership positions, trusting that it would be circulated if it was deemed useful.

Editor’s note: We use hyperlinks for many terms, for others we offer numbered footnotes to explain some of the terms used in the post.

***

1/5/2015

A document outlining suggestions and possible scenarios relating to assets in a post Findhorn Foundation world. Put forward for consideration by David Buswell, Foundation member 1997 – 2005.

Preamble

As an ex-Foundation member and current Titleholder[1] with property on The Field of Dreams, it occurred to me that consideration might not have been given to what would happen to the Foundation’s assets should it cease to function as an educational charity and no longer run workshops and related events. I’m also aware that others might indeed have considered this possibility and have ideas of their own which might include ideas similar to my own or radically different.

The concern for many Titleholders, myself included, apart from the sadness of such an event, would be the loss of revenue paid into the HoCo [2] fund by the organisation on the properties that would become redundant and unoccupied.

My first thought was that New Findhorn Directions (NFD) [3] might be considered an ideal vehicle as a holding company to take responsibility for all assets previously held as Findhorn Foundation (FF) property, including Cluny Hill, as the first action needed before sale or redistribution. I think this possibility could be acceptable to many Titleholders if accountability and transparency regarding financial accounting, procurement, and value for money were assured.

Another scenario could see the Titleholders `adopting’ the Park legally so NFD was a `service’ company and only rented or leased the caravan park from a new legal entity in the form of a not for profit Trust. If the Trust could not run the Holiday Park [4] as a profit making business then the Holiday Park, but not the land it is on, could be sold by means of a share offer. Foundation property at the Park could be rented out or sold in order to pay off Foundation debts and legal costs associated with conversions of Guest spaces and other residential properties. Any extra profit from sales could be invested in the Park by the new Trust or NFDs business to help with its viability.

Even though the Foundation’s percentage of HoCo charges to the total has been greatly reduced since charges from individual households have come onstream, the loss of revenue from the ceasing of that contribution would be a heavy burden for the remainder. This is why any suggestions considered beforehand when such a scenario looks likely, will serve to expedite the process and reduce loss of revenue into HoCo funds. Also, with so many people in effect becoming homeless, I include some ideas as to how this problem could be alleviated.

If the above scenario happened and NFD did take over, or a new Trust based entity created as suggested, my thoughts and ideas would be as follows. And please forgive any presumptions on my part as I’m only trying to be helpful and my only agenda is as a slightly worried Titleholder and ex member who could under different circumstances, have been one of those faced with the loss of a roof over their head.

Foundation property in The Park

With Moray Council approval, Guest and other properties could be sold with Titles, to private owners (my preferred option), though it of course won’t be my call, or rented out by NFD with NFD or the tenant paying the HoCo charges.

Below is a list of properties owned by the Foundation that could either be sold once a Title had been created including a portion of garden and access rights or rented out if this was considered best for the type of property involved. Renting out to former FF members from both the Park and Cluny could provide the answer to prospective homelessness and the individuals involved would have to sign on with the jobcentre and apply for housing benefit to cover their rent etc. It would be preferable for NFD to include the HoCo portion in with the rent and pay this in on their behalf as social services would not pay this. I think this would be legal and could be reviewed annually when HoCo increases are due.

Private Residential Tenancies offered

I would suggest yearly Short Term Assured tenancies would of course reflect the quality of accommodation and some of the occupants might consider sharing to reduce costs. So here’s the list.

Westwood
Cornerstone
Joanie’s
Genesis
Ross Stewart
Universal
Godfrey
Sunrise
Diane’s
Long Meadow
Evelyn’s
Legacy (after internal conversion)
Park Building (new owner pays for reversion to private home)
Rivendell
Rose Cottage (No longer fit for human habitation I heard and currently empty.)
Honeysuckle Cottage (Ditto)
Clearwater
Foxglove
Lupin
Mela
Eucalyptus (eco mobile)
Akhurst
Dolphin
Eden
Park Garden cabin (conversion)
No 60. (eco mobile)
Doris
The Bunkhouse

Bag End 9 &10 Bag End 2 & 3 and the Guest Lodge

Relatively easy conversion to three semi-detached properties as each end is a mirror and a shared kitchen large enough to be split between the two new residences in the case of 9 &10 and the Guest Lodge. Investment needed again but very desirable when finished.

Cluny Hill

Ah dear Cluny. What to do. Past examination of this question was asked some time ago and the upshot was as I recall, that the building was not viable as anything other than it was then being used for by the Foundation. In the opinion of an expert it would only be of any use to a developer with planning permission for demolition and the site used for executive style housing.

As a hotel it would be no good for today’s market. Although it could be used as a hostel, it is unlikely that anyone would want to pay the kind of price that such a valuable building plot could fetch for such a low income generating enterprise. Though a hostel does not need the same standards as a hotel. The hostel idea would need adequate staffing for cleaning, cooking, reception/booking in and security.

No doubt that people affected and living in The Park would want to stay where they currently live but I think this would tie the hands of NFD in regards to revenue raising through asset sales and ex members might have to move to another space. Cluny based ex- members would have to move out and could be offered the same deal as Park based members by occupying vacant Guest spaces in the Park.

Another scenario is that The Foundation might be able to remain operating as a workshop centre by operating from Cluny only and vacating the Park completely thus reducing duplication of departments and much of the expense of running and maintaining so many vehicles. The Park could then be the Eco-Village only with its own identity and concerns.

Other assets and the involvement of the New Findhorn Association (NFA) [5]

Other assets that the FF owns at the Park include :-

The Universal Hall
The Youth Building
The Family House
Pineridge Studios
The Visitors Centre
The Original caravan
Sheds in the Central Area
Medway Office
Bookings Office

I think in the future, NFD or a newly created Trust as the owners of the Park and previous FF facilities will come under pressure from the NFA to take over some of these facilities. There might even be a desire for some of these facilities to be ‘gifted’ to the NFA as I think they would not be able to pay for them. If any facilities were `gifted’ in this way and with Titles, this would give voting rights as Titleholders which would ensure some proportionate voting rights. I have to say I don’t see anything wrong with this at all, and maybe the time has come and that NFD or new Trust might also see this as attractive. The other option would be renting for a token sum as long as maintenance costs and HoCo charges were paid by the NFA. A tricky subject but one that is sure to materialise and need to be dealt with by NFD. I didn’t see the Universal Hall as included in this respect and see it as being privatised.

Legal aspects

Now I’m really out of my depth here but I’ll still say what’s on my mind. Whatever asset sales are carried out, I suppose by this time the Foundation will owe a lot of money, and maybe the bank will have prior charge on some of the property it owns, so those properties must really be ruled out as assets. Also, redundancy payments could be on the cards as payable to non-resident staff unless this doesn’t apply if the Foundation is declared insolvent!! Lots of legal work to create tenancy agreements or the creation of Titles if property is to be sold. Again I’m only mentioning a few things that I can think of and there must be many more expenses in relation to this whole process so I won’t say any more on this subject.

Because the Trustees of the Foundation are also the Trustees of NFD, will they then stand to benefit financially from it as a business? Or be personally liable?

If NFD becomes the new owners of all FF assets, it will become one of the larger Titleholders as the FF is now. Will it move forward with all the other Titleholders as the Foundation has, or will it be very different?

I would like to see all Titleholders including NFD as the owners, sharing the benefits and liabilities of the company as a kind of Trust. What I wouldn’t like to see is the company run in its own interests only and taking risks by borrowing against the assets of the Park without some control by all of the Titleholders. The Foundation has made some sound decisions in the past regarding the purchase of assets, especially the purchase of The Park, and It’s a great shame that due to financial pressure some of these had to be sold. Much loved properties such as Cullerne House, Station House and Drumduan. I know this is history now but it seems to show that the Foundation is in long term decline and we need to think the unthinkable.

Another scenario could be that NFD is separated entirely from asset management and becomes the owners and operators of the caravan park as a stand alone business. Shares would then be offered for sale in the company and the money raised could be used for affordable housing wherever there might be room in the Park.

Alternatively, if the stand alone business idea is not profitable enough, the business could cease trading and planning permission sought for a Solar Energy Park project as it’s already understood that housing would not be permitted at this location due to flooding risks.

The whole of the Park could then be owned and run by all the Titleholders with an office and full time staff employed to run it entirely on their behalf as a not for profit organization fully accountable to all its members.

Let’s hope that life after the Foundation and with NFD and the Titleholders going forward together will be free of the constant drama that has been my experience as the Foundation has lurched from one financial crisis to another.

Written in love and appreciation for all who may read it and in the spirit of community.

David

***

[1] Titleholders: People or organisations who own one or more titles to the land in The Park Ecovillage are members of the Titleholders Association. – click here for the present website of the Titleholders Association

[2] HoCo – The acronym was originally short for ‘housing company’. No such company was ever created but ‘Hoco’ stuck as a description of a system used to pay for various collective services.

[3] NFD – New Findhorn Directions was the business arm, the wholly owned subsidiary, of the Findhorn Foundation. It was closed down and on 1st June 2026, NFD Estate Services transferred to THA Park Services Limited, a subsidiary of The Titleholders Association.

[4] Holiday Park – The Community was founded on the Findhorn Bay Holiday Park at the time owned by Captain Gibson. In 1983 the Findhorn Foundation purchased the caravan park and continued to operated the Holiday Park through NFD – click here for the present website for Findhorn Bay Holiday Park

[5] New Findhorn Association (NFA) – click here for the present NFA website